On Wednesday (20th March) The Union Law Ministry denied claims in court that the appointment of two election commissioners on March 14 was rushed to preempt the Supreme Court’s decisions scheduled for the next day, which involved challenges to the 2023 law and requests for temporary relief.
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, the Central Government defended its decision to appoint two new election commissioners following the unexpected resignation of Commissioner Arun Goel on March 9. The decision came just before the anticipated Lok Sabha elections, leaving only the Chief Election Commissioner, Rajiv Kumar, in office.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court || Petition Seeks to Restrain Center from Appointing CEC and EC
Notably, the two appointments have drawn controversy since they were made by a selection panel that does not include the CJI, contrary to the selection mechanism proposed by the Supreme Court in a 2023 judgment.
In an affidavit filed before the top court on Wednesday, the Center also argued that the deliberations of the high-level committee under the CEC Act, which preceded the appointment of these officers, were collaborative.
“It is submitted that the case of the petitioners is premised on one fundamental fallacy that the independence can only be maintained in any authority when the selection committee is of a particular formulation. It must be noted that the independence of the Election commission, or any other organisation or authority, does not arise from and is not attributable to the presence of a judicial member in the selection committee,” the affidavit said.
“It is, therefore, wholly wrong, misleading and malicious to suggest that the third member of the Selection Committee was given the shortlisted names as an act of premeditation on the mind of the two members of the Executive as all the members received the list simultaneously. Furthermore, the list of dates clearly brings out the fact that profiles of all eligible persons were shared with the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Saba on March 13, 2024.
“It may be noted that the persons finally appointed were from the list so shared. This belies the claim of the petitioners that no list was shared in advance of the meeting,” the affidavit said.
The Center contended that a political controversy has been sought to be created only on the basis of “bare, unsupported, and pernicious” statements about certain vague and unspecified motives behind the appointment.
Despite objections, the Supreme Court didn’t stay the appointments. Retired IAS officers Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu filled the vacancies. The selection panel now comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
“Where no question has been raised about the qualifications of candidates to hold a constitutional post nor has any material been brought on record to show that the candidates are unfit for office, no prima facie case can be said to have been made out. On that ground alone, the application for stay ought to be dismissed,” the affidavit said.
“To indicate, as the petitioners suggest, that selection committees without judicial members, would invariably be biased is wholly incorrect. It is submitted that such an argument would read an implied limitation into the otherwise plenary power of Article 324(2), which is impermissible.
“The election commissioners have been able to function neutrally and effectively even during the era of full executive discretion in appointment. As a high constitutional office, the chief election commissioner enjoys protection that are in-built into the Constitution, and which enable them to act impartially,” it said, adding that the allegations of disingenuous motive and premeditation on the part of the government are wholly without basis.
While the Court had said in the Anoop Baranwal judgment that the panel should comprise the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the CJI, the CEC Act provides for a cabinet minister as a panel member instead of the CJI. Previously, a 2023 ruling mandated the involvement of the Chief Justice in the appointment process, but this recent move excluded them.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
