The NGO, which filed the petition in the Supreme Court, has alleged that in the last few years, questions have been raised about the functioning of the Election Commission in the management and monitoring of elections.
Image Credit source: File Photo
The Supreme Court has started a fresh debate on this issue by advising the Central Government to appoint the best man like TN Session as the Chief Election Commissioner. After this comment of the Supreme Court, the discussion in the political environment is in full swing whether the central government will accept the demand of forming a transparent collegium for the appointment of Election Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner. This demand has been going on for years.
Justice KM Joseph, who headed the 5-member bench of the Supreme Court, has made this comment since now, during the hearing of a petition in the Supreme Court.
What has the Supreme Court said?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the Constitution has placed a lot of responsibility on the delicate shoulders of the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners and it wanted a person of strong character like TN Seshan as the Chief Election Commissioner. In fact, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph was hearing a petition seeking reform in the system of appointment of election commissioners.
The Supreme Court yesterday said the ground situation was alarming and wanted a CEC like the late TN Seshan, known for bringing significant electoral reforms as the Election Commission chief from 1990 to 1996. Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravi Kumar are also included in this bench. The bench said that its endeavor is to put in place a system so that the best person is selected as the CEC.
What are the arguments of the central government?
The central government is opposing the collegium. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing in the Supreme Court on behalf of the central government, said that the government is not going to oppose the appointment of a qualified person, but the question is how it can happen. He said, “There is no vacancy in the constitution. At present the Election Commissioners are appointed by the President on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Significantly, last week, the Supreme Court had asked the central government to clear its stand on the demand of the collegium.
The government has clearly told the country’s highest court that it has no intention of doing so. The Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Central Government said that any such attempt would have to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s strong comment came only after the Center strongly opposed a set of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of the CEC and election commissioners.
What does the former Election Commissioner say?
On this issue, former Election Commissioner SY Qureshi says that the issue of the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner is not that important. Important is the demand for a transparent collegium for the appointment of commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. He says that he has worked as Election Commissioner for more than four years and as Chief Election Commissioner for more than one year. Both have the same rights. There is no difference in work also. Therefore, the tenure of six years is not of much importance. Whatever work one has to do, he can do it even in one or two years.
The most important is the formation of collegium for appointments. Qureshi raises the question that when a collegium has been established for the appointment of CBI and CVC, then why not for the CEC. If the previous governments did not do this work, then the present government should do this work. According to Qureshi, the concern of the Supreme Court is justified and the central government should take steps to remove this concern.
Many former election commissioners have demanded collegium
SY Qureshi says that he has raised the demand for a collegium for the appointment of election commissioners in the past as well. Apart from him, many other former Election Commissioners have also raised this demand. TS Krishnamurthy, who was the Chief Election Commissioner from February 2004 to May 2005, says that when he was the Chief Election Commissioner, he had recommended a transparent process for the appointment of commissioners so that people’s trust could be maintained.
Former Chief Election Commissioner and Sports Minister in the UPA government Dr. MS Gill has also been questioning the appointment process of Election Commissioners. Gill, who was the Chief Election Commissioner for nearly five years from 1996 to 2001, has been saying that the appointment of election commissioners should not be left to the government and this is not a new thing. However, like the Supreme Court, former Chief Election Commissioners believe that all good Election Commissioners have been appointed so far, but there is no guarantee that this will happen in the future.
What do legal experts say?
At the outset, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Anoop Baranwal, says that an independent body like the apex court’s collegium should select the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and the Election Commissioner to ensure the institutional integrity of the commission. They say that the government is run by a political party, then how can it appoint the head of the organization that conducts elections.
They say that the Election Commission is a very important institution for democracy and there is no law for this. Prashant says that ‘there is a provision in the constitution that until a law is made, the President will appoint the members of the Election Commission and the reason for the delay in the law has been different government’s own reasons. They say that once the commissioner is appointed, the government can remove him only through impeachment. Prashant Bhushan hopes that the way the Supreme Court had asked to make a law for the appointment of the CBI chief, in the same way the Supreme Court can order regarding this.
What are the methods in favor of collegium?
Election rights group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has challenged in the Supreme Court the constitutional validity of the practice of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners by the executive alone, saying it raises doubts about the neutrality of the Election Commission. The organization also demanded the formation of a neutral and independent collegium/selection committee for the appointment of members of the Election Commission.
It has been said in the petition that only the executive cannot be the sole participant in the appointment of the members of the Election Commission, as this gives the ruling party the privilege of choosing an officer loyal to it. He said that this process does not match with Article 324(2) of the Constitution. It has been said in the PIL that democracy is an aspect of the basic structure of the Constitution and in order to conduct free and fair elections and maintain a healthy democracy in the country, the Election Commission has to be protected from political and governance interference.
Is the impartiality of the Election Commission suspicious?
Significantly, the Election Commission has been facing allegations of favoring the government for the last several years. Elections are held simultaneously in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh. By 2012, the dates for the elections would have been announced simultaneously. But in 2017 and 2022, the dates for the elections of both the states were announced separately. The NGO, which filed the petition in the Supreme Court, has alleged that in the last few years, questions have been raised about the functioning of the Election Commission in the management and monitoring of elections.
It has been argued in the petition that this process violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with fair and free elections. The petitioners say that the appointment of Election Commissioners through the executive violates this entire premise, due to which the commission also becomes a part of the executive. The petition sought implementation of the 255th Law Commission’s recommendation, which stated that election commissioners should be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
Now the Supreme Court has taken a tough stand on this issue and made it clear that it wants to make the selection process of Election Commissioners transparent like the process of choosing CBI and CVC chiefs. Due to this tough stand of the Supreme Court, the central government may come under pressure. The Supreme Court has tried to give this message by taking the name of TN Seshan that the person sitting on the chair of the Chief Election Commissioner should use his constitutional rights impartially.
Significantly, he was a former Cabinet Secretary in the Central Government and was appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner on December 12, 1990. His tenure lasted till December 11, 1996. He died on November 10, 2019. Seshan was the last Chief Election Commissioner to complete a six-year term.
Source: www.tv9hindi.com”