CEC Appointment Panel: The Center today (23 November) told the Supreme Court that it is a misconception that mere presence of someone from the judiciary in the panel for appointment of Election Commissioners and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) would ensure transparency and independence.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a five-judge bench headed by Justice KM Joseph, “There is a presumption that only with the presence of the judiciary, independence and impartiality will be achieved, it is a There is a wrong reading. of the Constitution. Mere presence of someone from the judiciary will ensure transparency is a false statement.”
Mehta also told a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar that the petitioners propose that a collegium-like system with the Chief Justice of India as a member be put in place for want of legislation. EC and CEC cannot be appointed.
“This court cannot say that in the absence of a law it should be a law because the court is dealing with the constitution and not the law,” he said.
Justice Rastogi asks Mehta if he thinks whatever appointments are being made under a process in the absence of law are fair. Mehta replied, “Yes, as a constitutional proposition the independence of the executive and the independence of the judiciary are equally sacrosanct. The principle of separation of power stems from Article 14, which means that all organs of the state are in the eyes of the constitution.” are identical.”
Justice Joseph pointed out to the Solicitor General that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is involved in the process of appointing the CBI Director, then what does it mean for democracy.
Referring to the Vineet Narayan case of 1997, he said, “The judgment has been passed by this court and it has been accepted by the executive, where the selection of the CBI director was contemplated to be done by a committee.”
Mehta replied that before the Vineet Narayan case, the CBI director was only an officer and there was a vacuum in the law as to how that person should be selected.
“Their selection was not given to the highest constitutional functionaries. Hence this court intervened,” he said, adding that the current system of appointment of election commissioners and CEC is not responsive at the pre-appointment stage.
Underlining the importance of having a Chief Election Commissioner who is a “person of independent and character”, the apex court wondered whether it would not be a case of “complete breakdown of the system” if the CEC does not act against the Prime Minister charges against him.
The apex court’s remarks came after the Center claimed that the current system of appointing election commissioners and chief election commissioner on the basis of seniority is “doing quite well”.
The appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel also came under scrutiny by the apex court, which sought original records relating to his appointment from the Centre, saying it wanted to know if there was any “hanky-panky”.
Read also: Submit CEC Arun Goel’s appointment file: Supreme Court tells Center
During the day-long hearing, the bench said that involving the Chief Justice of India in the consultative process for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner would ensure the independence of the Election Commission. The apex court was of the view that any ruling party at the Center “wants to retain itself in power” and may appoint a ‘yes man’ to the post under the existing dispensation.
The court was hearing petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (EC) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The Center argued that a 1991 Act ensured that the Election Commission remained independent in terms of salary and tenure of its members and there was no “trigger point” that warranted court intervention.
It said the mechanism adopted for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner is seniority among the Election Commissioners, who are appointed by the Central and State level Secretary or Chief Secretary level officers respectively. The bench said that the independence of the institution should be ensured to the extent that recruitment at the entry level should be scanned.
“Each ruling political party at the Center prefers to retain itself in power. Now, what we want to do is focus on the consultative process for the appointment of the CEC and ensure independence by involving the Chief Justice of India in the process.” Will commission,” the bench said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, also said that the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 was a historic moment which ensured independence in salary and tenure of the Election Commission.
“The law was passed by the Parliament after the report of the Dinesh Goswami Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that no application of mind was made. The law provides and ensures that the Commission fixes the salary and tenure of its members. remains independent in terms of which are intrinsic features to the independence of an institution,” he said.
The bench told Venkataramani that the 1991 Act only deals with conditions of service which is clear from its name itself.
“Suppose the government appoints a ‘yes man’ who has similar philosophy and similar ideology. The law gives him all immunities in tenure and salary, then there is no so-called independence in the institution. It is an election. Commission, where liberty at the threshold should be ensured,” the bench said.
Venkataramani said that there are various aspects of independence and salary and fixed tenure are some of them.
“There is no trigger point that warrants interference from the court. It is not that there was some vacancy and it is not being filled or there is some arbitrariness in the process that warrants court’s interference,” he said.
(With PTI inputs)
Read also: Former IAS officer Arun Goyal appointed as Election Commissioner