What is in news: Karnataka high court has opined State Election Commission (SEC) is not bound by the State Cabinet’s decision on election

Background : Karnataka State election commission had postponed elections to local bodies after directions of State cabinet owing to pandemic

MAHITI FOR PRELIMS

STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

• Article 243K(1) – Appointment of SEC for conducting elections to local bodies in state
• Article 243K(2) – Tenure and appointment will be directed as per the law made by the state legislature
• State election commissioner can be removed from his/her office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court

MAHITI FOR MAINS

Challenges With Functioning of Election Commission Institution

• Lack of Autonomy: Although the state election commission on many occasions tried to exercise its duties enshrined in the constitution of India, they struggled to assert their independence.
• Lack of Safeguard for SEC: Though the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his/her office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court (Art 243K(2)), yet it has been diluted on many instances. In the Aparmita Prasad Singh vs. State of U.P. (2007) the Allahabad High Court held that if the Governor has power to fix or prescribe tenure by rule, he also enjoys the power to amend the rule, either for extending the term of the tenure or reducing the same.
• Non Uniform Service Conditions for SECs: Article 243K(2) states that the tenure and appointment will be directed as per the law made by the state legislature and thus each SEC is governed by a separate state Act.

QUESTION : Suggest measures on strengthening State election commissions