YS Jagan Mohan Reddy has expressed regret over supporting the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the Election Commissioner selection committee. Jagan now backs restoring the CJI to that panel. The 2023 law replaced the Supreme Court-mandated three-member committee — comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and CJI — with one substituting a Cabinet Minister for the CJI.

The 2023 Act emerged directly from the Supreme Court's five-judge constitution bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (March 2023), which held that the existing executive-only appointment process for Election Commissioners violated constitutional principles of independence. The Court directed that until Parliament legislated, appointments would be made by a committee of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.

Parliament responded by enacting the 2023 Act within months, but controversially replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister — effectively restoring executive dominance over the panel. Critics argued this undermined the spirit of Anoop Baranwal, which emphasised insulating the Election Commission from ruling-party control.

The constitutional foundation lies in Articles 324(2) and 14. Article 324(2) says the President shall appoint Election Commissioners 'subject to any law made in that behalf by Parliament,' giving Parliament wide latitude — but the Court in Anoop Baranwal read constitutional morality and the independence of constitutional bodies as an implicit limitation. The judgment drew on the basic structure doctrine and the 'presumption of constitutionality' debate.

Jagan's reversal is politically significant: YSRCP backed the 2023 Bill in Parliament. His current position aligns with the Opposition's longstanding demand to restore the CJI's role, raising the doctrinal question of whether an Act of Parliament can validly dilute a constitutionally-mandated safeguard inferred by the Supreme Court.