Editorial 1: A process where free and fair elections will be a casualty

Context

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, is flawed, as it backs the government-supported candidate.

Introduction

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023 was the first law enacted by Parliament, under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, dealing with the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC). This law was made in response to a Supreme Court of India order of March 2023 according to which the CEC and ECs should be appointed on the basis of a recommendation made by a high-power committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

• This was to be an interim measure until Parliament made a law on the subject.
• As a matter of fact, in the past, the CEC and ECs where always appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
• This was found to be an unsatisfactory situation by the Court as it would affect the impartiality of the Election Commission of India, which is constitutionally tasked with conducting elections in a free and fair manner.

Challenging the new law

• Change in selection committee composition: Although the government made the new law as per the direction of the Court, in the committee it replaced the CJI with a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister, who chairs the three-member committee. The Leader of Opposition (LoP) is the other member.
• Legal challenge to the new law: This law has been challenged on the ground that the provision relating to the composition of the selection panel violates the direction of the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench was headed by Justice K.M. Joseph (retired).
• Search committee structure: The new law provides for a search committee headed by the Law Minister and two senior bureaucrats in the Union government, which will prepare a list of five persons for the committee to consider.
• Lack of transparency in selection: The names of persons found eligible by the search committee have not been made public.
• Appointment of CEC: The senior most Election Commissioner (EC) has been chosen to be appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) by the two members of the committee, namely, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister.
• LoP’s dissenting note: The LoP put in a dissenting note, wanting the selection to be put off till the Court has considered the challenge to the law.
• Majority decision in selection committee: As it happened, the decision was taken by the majority in the selection committee. It must be said here that the procedure laid down in the law has been complied with.
• Official notification of appointments: Subsequently, the appointments of CEC and another EC have been officially notified.
• Constitutional issues in Court hearing: Now that the law on the appointment of the CEC and ECs has come up for hearing in the Court, there are certain constitutional issues which need to be highlighted for a proper perspective in the matter of appointment of these high constitutional authorities.

Infirmities in the selection process

• ECI’s constitutional mandate: The Constitution of India has vested the entire responsibility for conducting the elections to Parliament and State legislatures, as well as preparing the electoral roll, in the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324.
• Plenary powers of ECI: Plenary powers for effectively discharging this responsibility have also been conferred on the ECI.
• Judicial affirmation of ECI’s role: The Court, in Election Commission of India vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1993), while dealing with the question of powers of the ECI, stated:
  “The Election Commission of India is a high constitutional authority charged with the function and the duty of ensuring free and fair elections and of the purity of the electoral process. It has all the incidental and ancillary powers to effectuate the constitutional objective and purpose. The plenitude of the Commission’s powers corresponds to the high constitutional functions it has to discharge.”
• Judicial emphasis on free and fair elections: This and many other judgments of the Court lay stress on the duty of the ECI to ensure free and fair elections and to maintain the purity of the electoral process.
• Scale of elections in India: Around 960 million voters participate in the voting process in India, making it the most gigantic task for an electoral body anywhere in the world.
• Need for integrity and competence in ECI leadership: To conduct such a massive election, while ensuring that it is free and fair, demands that the ECI should have persons of unimpeachable integrity, with proven competence and absolute impartiality in heading it.
• Significance of a constitutionally sound selection process: Therefore, it is of utmost importance that such persons are selected through a process which is constitutionally correct and which also inspires great confidence on the citizens of India.

Flaws in the Selection Process of CEC and ECs

• Composition of the select committee: The most crucial part of this law is the composition of the select committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and has the Leader of Opposition (LoP) and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as members.
• Role of the President in appointments: Section 7 of the Act states that the President shall appoint the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) on the recommendation of the select committee. It is mandatory for the President to appoint persons recommended by the select committee.
• Final authority of the select committee: The select committee has the final say on who should be appointed as CEC and ECs.
• Government’s built-in majority in the committee: The most serious infirmity in this provision is that the law itself creates a majority in favour of the government.
• Lack of objective assessment: Since the third member of the committee is a Cabinet Minister under the Prime Minister, it is clear that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Minister will at all times constitute the majority, making it impossible for the committee to make an objective assessment of the comparative merit of all the listed candidates.
• Government’s control over selection: The committee can select only a person whom the government favours.
• Flawed function of the law: The function of the law should be to lay down the qualification or status of the members to be brought on the selection committee, not to ensure a government-controlled majority through legal legerdemain.
• Absence of independent decision-making: A Cabinet Minister will always support the Prime Minister’s proposal, raising the question: where is the objective assessment of all the listed persons by such a committee?
• Predictability of the selection outcome: The majority opinion in any committee should emerge through discussion among independent members, which cannot be predicted beforehand. However, in the committee under this law, the outcome can be predicted beforehand.
• Issue of the chairman’s power to nominate a member: Another serious infirmity is that the chairperson nominates one of the members, namely, the Cabinet Minister.
• Lack of independent decision-making in the selection committee: Members of the selection committee who select the CEC and ECs need to be independent men capable of expressing their free will.
• Subservience of the nominated Cabinet Minister: When the chairman himself nominates one member, this candidate will undoubtedly be subservient to the chairman.
• Conflict of interest in decision-making: A Cabinet Minister cannot take a view that is different from that of the Prime Minister.
• Inherent incapacity to select the best candidate: Thus, the selection committee, as constituted, has an inherent incapacity to select the best person through an objective assessment.

It defeats fairness and objectivity

• Constitutional unsustainability of the law: These infirmities make this law constitutionally unsustainable because the provision relating to the composition of the committee is arbitrary and does not have a rational basis.
• Bias in candidate selection: Further, by creating a majority in favour of the government-supported candidate, it does not allow a fair and objective assessment of the merit of other similarly placed candidates.
• Potential violation of Article 14: Thus, this provision may violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.

Conclusion

Besides, the selection of the CEC and other ECs has a vital bearing on the conduct of free and fair elections and in maintaining the purity of the electoral process, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. So, if the composition of the select committee ensures a majority for the government supported candidate always, free and fair elections will be a casualty. The Supreme Court of India will have to take a hard look at this law.

---

Editorial 2: Trump 2.0 and the new matrix of U.S.-India defence ties

Context

Defence cooperation has acquired a stable momentum, but there are still major challenges that Washington and New Delhi need to address.

Introduction

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s brief and official working visit on February 13, 2025 to the United States has, rightfully, got a lot of attention. Among other things, it managed to give a push to the U.S.-India bilateral defence engagement. Defence acquisitions will certainly expand interoperability, as the joint statement underscored. Among the agreements announced is about India likely to be proceeding with the purchase and co-production of the ‘Javelin’ Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) and ‘Stryker’ Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs). Co-production of the ‘Javelin’ and the ‘Stryker’ will boost domestic manufacturing and help integrate India more into the supply chain for these systems.

A spectrum

• Expansion of maritime surveillance: India is to buy six more P-8I maritime patrol aircraft to augment the Indian Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA).
• New defence partnership agreement: New Delhi and Washington will sign a new 10-year Framework for the U.S.-India Major Defense Partnership in the 21st Century.
• Collaboration in unmanned and autonomous systems: Collaboration in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and autonomous systems, which includes contracts already underway between Anduril Industries and the Mahindra Group, and the co-development by L3Harris and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) of Active Towed Array Systems (ATAS) received a further boost under a fresh initiative announced by Mr. Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump, dubbed the Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA).
• Potential cooperation in advanced defence technologies: Greater cooperation following a review is possible in undersea systems and fifth-generation fighter aircraft, as well as accelerated cooperation in space, air defence, and anti-tank missiles.
• Review of arms transfer regulations: India and the U.S. have also agreed to review their existing regulatory regime in arms transfers for more synergy in defence trade, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO), and critical initiations of negotiations for a Reciprocal Defence Procurement (RDP) agreement.
• Reciprocal defence procurement (RDP) agreement: Under this, both countries will align their acquisition mechanisms and foster a mutual supply of defence services and goods.
• Strengthening bilateral defence ties: All these announcements augur well for deeper defence cooperation between the two countries.

The hurdles

• Challenges in defence cooperation: However, challenges persist.
• Absence of GE engine delivery mention: One of the critical elements missing in the joint statement was virtually no mention of the urgent delivery of General Electric (GE) Aerospace’s F-404 GE-IN-20 engines for the India-made Tejas-Mark 1A fighter aircraft or the delivery and eventual 80% Transfer of Technology (ToT) to India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the more advanced GE engine F-414 to power the Mark-II variant of the Tejas.
• Possibility of F-35 procurement: Mr. Trump, in the joint press conference with Mr. Modi, did reiterate (as the joint statement suggests) the possibility of New Delhi purchasing the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.
• Difficulties in integrating the F-35: Integrating the F-35 would be the most difficult to pull off as the Indian Air Force (IAF) has too many persistent gaps, which it is struggling to fill.
• IAF’s capability deficits: The IAF’s capabilities, especially in the domain of offensive combat air power, require an infusion of ongoing, yet delayed, integration of several fighter aircraft geared for offensive and defensive air, counter air, and ground attack missions.
• Need for Tejas induction: These capability deficits include inducting the light-weight Tejas-Mark 1A and the Mark-II jets, which are expected to replace the MiG-21 squadrons, most of which have been retired.
• Concern over dwindling IAF squadrons: The absence of any word in the joint statement on GE’s engine supply for the Tejas is a cause for concern due to the dwindling number of IAF fighter squadrons, which could fall to under 30.
• Revival of MMRCA project: There is also an effort to revive the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) project for 114 multirole fighter aircraft.
• History of MMRCA project: The project, which was first initiated in the year 2000, underwent several changestill 2004. A new process began in 2007 that led to Dassault’s Rafale being selected in 2011-12 for the supply of 114 fighter jets following an extensive and rigorous evaluation process.
• Issues with Rafale deal: The French diluted their commitment to ToT, after expressing scepticism about HAL’s capacity to meet the rigorous technical standards necessary to build the aircraft.
• Failure of negotiations: Negotiations tapered off because New Delhi was not ready to pay for the cost of the jets or accept France’s terms, eventually settling for 36 Rafale fighters in fly-away condition for $8.8 billion as part of a government-to-government contract.

What a deal with the U.S. would entail

• Trump administration’s F-35 offer: In this context, the Trump administration’s latest offer of the F-35 is not new, as (the late) Ashton Carter, who was Defence Secretary under the Obama administration, had made a similar bid to sell the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
• Lack of co-production and ToT: But it would come without an offer of co-production or Transfer of Technology (ToT), even if the unit cost of the F-35 jet is currently pegged at $80 million a plane.
• Price comparison with Rafale: In contrast, India purchased the Rafale for $244 million a piece, but with a substantial weapons package, consisting of the 300-kilometre range Scalp air-to-ground cruise missile and the 150-kilometre range Meteor missiles.
• Challenges in integrating the F-35: Integrating the F-35 into the IAF is likely to be demanding as it already fields very diverse aircraft, which might leave it incurring fairly substantial infrastructure and maintenance costs as well as a highly intrusive on-site inspection U.S. regime.

Conclusion

More consequentially the IAF and the Government of India will need to consider potential American restrictions on the use of the F-35 that may come with its sale. In a nutshell, while U.S.-India defence cooperation has acquired a stable momentum, there are still some challenges that both sides need to address. The Modi-Trump engagement has prepared a template which should now be used by both sides to move quickly on key deliverables.