New Delhi, May 15 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday acknowledged the "executive veto" in appointments of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners, scoffing at the "show of independence" in making the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha the third member in the committee chaired by the Prime Minister, and with a Union minister as the other member. This effectively gives control to the executive over appointments with a 2:1 majority. The court was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The petitioners claimed that the law threatens the independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI) by allowing the government to appoint their "yes man". The court pointed out that a five-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the Anoop Baranwal case decided in March 2023 laid down the composition of the selection panel for CEC/EC appointments , with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as one of the members, albeit until Parliament enacts a law. The law replaced the CJI with a Union minister in the three-member panel. The law was passed shortly after the judgment. The bench of justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma said, "What troubles us is, why is there an executive veto after all these precedents that we have laid down? For a post such as CBI Director that is for maintaining law and order and rule of law you have CJI in the selection panel but not for Election Commission appointments which are for maintaining democracy through free and fair elections." The CBI director is selected by a panel comprising the PM, LoP, and CJI. The court was responding to arguments made by Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for Centre who said that the Baranwal judgment cannot be a "binding precedent" as it is "part of history" and would hold the field till Parliament brought a law. The Centre filed an affidavit on Wednesday which said that the inclusion of a member of judiciary in the selection panel is a legislative choice and not a constitutional imperative and to assume that the present panel will be biased is hypothetical and incorrect. The bench remarked, "We don't say you must have CJI in the panel. But why should there be a Cabinet minister? For that matter, why have the Leader of Opposition. Why do you put up this show of independence?". Venkataramani said that in the past six to seven decades when CEC and ECs were appointed by the executive, there has never been a bad experience that has compromised free and fair elections. In such a situation, the court cannot engage in a fishing expedition, he said....