Challenge To Election Commissioners' Law: Live Updates From Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is hearing the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.Bench : Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Yesterday, the Court rejected Centre's plea to adjourn the matter and began hearing arguments, orally observing that this case is more...
The Supreme Court is hearing the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Bench : Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Yesterday, the Court rejected Centre's plea to adjourn the matter and began hearing arguments, orally observing that this case is more important than any other.
The petitioners have argued that the law violates constitutional principles affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. UoI judgement, which provided for a selection panel comprising the Chief Justice of India apart from PM and LoP.
The petitioners contended that the impugned law ensures that "Prime Minister's man" is appointed, undermining independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.
Read report from yesterday's hearing here
Follow the page for live updates.
Farasat concludes his arguments. Matter to continue next week.
Farasat: there are many possibilities, that is one formula that the court took. You have to consider that another round does not happen if you agree with us. If you don't that is a different question. This law is outside the threshold of the constitution. Your lordships should set it aside and then in the interim give us something functional
Farasat: these are all possibilities and none of these cases are of dominance of the executive as it is today.
J Datta: Why was CJI included in the first place?
Farasat: I think it came first in the suggestions by the Goswami commission
Farasat: two thirds is the real legislature in which you need the other side on board. There is one more way that it can just be the Prime Minister and the LoP and they have to agree on a person. They will only agree on a person who both of them feel will be fair to each of them
J Datta: we are saying two thirds majority of legislature as you pointed out the South African constitution.
Farasat: they have requirement of simple majority. Sometimes in a parliamentary democracy it is said that the legislature is executive in disguise as they will also obviously have the majority in Parliament. Simple majority might mean executive so your lordships are right that two third versus executive.
J Datta: third member could be nominated by two thirds of the parliament in a joint sitting.
Farasat: It is possible.
Farasat: There will have to be an interim mechanism. there are four or five other options also. The CJI can have a consensus building role instead of having to side with either PM or LoP. It can be said that the decision has to be unanimous instead of majority. There are many possibilities.
Farasat: one option will be to simplicitor strike down the law so that the Parliament has fo make a new law. CEC and ECs which appointed under the law will also have to consequentially go. But obviously it can't be the everything they have done also has to go as that will be impractical
Farasat: the commission would be composed of at least 3, no maximum. The president appoints on the recommendation of the legislature. Before the majority, the committee which recommends has to have proportional representation of all parties in the assembly. It is a double layered protection.
Farasat: we don't say it explicitly because theirs is a latter constitution and they had the benefit of experience. But the same principles apply here.
Farasat: ECI is a guarantor institution.
Farasat cites South African constitution: electoral commission is one of the state institutions supporting constitutional democracy. It is explicit in their constitution but implicit in our constitution