Which of the following statements with regard to the Anoop Barenwal v. Union of India (2023) case is/are correct? 1. The case was heard by a Constitutional Bench 2. According to the judgment, the grounds for removal of Election Commissioners shall be the same as the Chief Justice of India Select the answer using the code given below:
- (a)1 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)Both 1 and 2
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2
Correct — A, 1 only. Statement 1 is right. The case was decided on 2 March 2023 by a Constitution Bench of five judges, which held that until Parliament legislates, the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 fails twice over. Article 324(5) protects the Chief Election Commissioner by providing that he shall not be removed except in like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court — a judge, not the Chief Justice of India — and the Court did not extend that protection to the other Election Commissioners, who continue to be removable on the Chief Election Commissioner's recommendation. Parliament then legislated later in 2023, and the new Act replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee with a Union Cabinet Minister.
- (b)2 only — It rejects the composition of the bench, which is the settled part of the case, and accepts a removal proposition the judgment did not lay down.
- (c)Both 1 and 2 — The bench was a Constitution Bench, but the removal statement is wrong. The constitutional benchmark for removing the Chief Election Commissioner is a judge of the Supreme Court, and the other Commissioners do not share even that protection.
- (d)Neither 1 nor 2 — A five-judge bench heard and decided the case, so statement 1 cannot be rejected.
Article 324 vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission and leaves appointment to the President subject to any law made by Parliament. For seven decades no such law existed, so appointments were made on the government's advice alone. The 2023 judgment filled that gap as an interim measure, expressly stating that its arrangement would hold only until Parliament acted. Parliament passed a statute later in the same year, which is why the committee's composition today is not the one the Court laid down.
Two details are worth separating. Appointment and removal are different questions, and the case was about appointment. On removal, the Constitution already distinguishes the Chief Election Commissioner, who has judge-like protection, from the other Commissioners, who do not — a distinction the Court noted without abolishing. A statement that flattens that distinction, or that swaps a judge of the Supreme Court for the Chief Justice of India, is doing something the text does not do.
- The case was decided on 2 March 2023 by a Constitution Bench of five judges.
- It directed that appointments be made on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, until Parliament legislated.
- Article 324(5) protects only the Chief Election Commissioner, who is removable in like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
- Other Election Commissioners are removable by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
- Parliament enacted a law later in 2023 replacing the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee with a Union Cabinet Minister.
The case settled the appointment question; the removal position in statement 2 was not what it laid down.
- Reading like a judge of the Supreme Court as like the Chief Justice of India.
- Assuming the Election Commissioners have the same removal protection as the Chief Election Commissioner.
- Treating the Court's interim arrangement as the position in force today.
A two-statement case-law item pairing a procedural fact about the bench with a substantive claim about what the judgment held.
Consider the following statements with reference to India: 1. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners enjoy equal powers but receive unequal salaries. 2. The Chief Election Commissioner is entitled to the same salary as is provided to a judge of the Supreme Court. 3. The Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
- (a) 1 and 2
- (b) 2 and 3
- (c) 1 and 4
- (d) 2 and 4
Answer(b) 2 and 3
The removal provision this item misstates, quoted correctly. The benchmark in Article 324(5) is a judge of the Supreme Court, and the protection attaches to the Chief Election Commissioner alone.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under Article 324(5), the Chief Election Commissioner may be removed from office
- (a)By the President at pleasure
- (b)In like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court
- (c)On the recommendation of the Union Cabinet
- (d)By a resolution of the Election Commission
Answer(b) In like manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court — the other Election Commissioners do not share this protection.
- practice — not a real PYQ
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India consists of at least
- (a)Three judges
- (b)Five judges
- (c)Seven judges
- (d)Nine judges
Answer(b) Five judges — required for substantial questions of constitutional interpretation under Article 145(3).