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 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.
Bhushan: it happens sometimes.
J Datta: this is our experience in the supreme court. It doesn't happen in the High Court. Yesterday we refused to adjourn saying that this is important and now this is what is happening
J Datta: come to play page 35 of of your petition see the verification part.
Bhushan: above named deponent verified. It is blank.
Bhushan: and there was no attempt it seems by the government to defend this. They just moved a resolution and in a voice vote it was passed.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan for Association for Democratic Reforms reads out pleading in ADR's writ petition: there was virtually no debate because a number of MPs were suspended. Mr. Owaisi had submitted strongly that this Act goes against Anoop Baranwal and make the appointment totally on subjective satisfaction of the government
Hansaria: Substantially it is that it has to be outside executive control.
J Datta: is it there on record that a number of MPs were out?
Farasat: in our intervention we have specifically pleaded this.
J Datta: Is there any petition with better pleadings? This is nothing. In an article 32 petition there is no specific pleading about invalidity of section 7 and 8 on the grounds which you are raising.
Farasat: ADR petition is much more detailed.
Hansaria reads out the pleadings in the petition.
J Datta: What the pleadings you have taken for us to hold that the law violates principle of free and fair elections.
Hansaria: this is part of my submissions that in order to ensure purity of election the constitutional makers thought that holding of election should be entrusted to independent body insulated from political executive interference.
J Datta: is there any observation in the judgment that when Parliament frames the law this judgement has to be kept in mind?
Hansaria: when a law is framed it has to meet the constitutional law. In Baranwal the court has said what the constitutional requirement is.
Hansaria: judgement does not merely say that this should be the composition. It has given the constitutional requirements.