SC Judgment Didn't Say Law On Election Commissioners Must Be Made In A Particular Manner : Supreme Court During Hearing

The Supreme Court today questioned the basis of challenge to the law governing appointment of Election Commissioners, observing that the ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India was only meant to fill a vacuum until Parliament enacted a law and did not mandate any particular structure for such a law.“Anoop Baranwal judgment was only to fill the vacuum till the law is made. There is no observation in the judgment that the law should be framed in a particular manner. Don't only take the ground of violation of the 5-judge judgment in Anoop Baranwal”, Justice Dipankar Datta said.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the statute which provides that the selection panel for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will comprise the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.Justice Datta told Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria for petitioner Jaya Thakur not to rely solely on the ground that the law violates the five-judge bench decision in Anoop Baranwal. He said the judgment did not lay down that Parliament must frame the law in any particular manner.Hansaria responded that the challenge was based on constitutional principles identified in the judgment, particularly the requirement of an independent Election Commission. He argued that free and fair elections require an institution insulated from executive control. Justice Datta expressed dissatisfaction with the pleadings in the petition, remarking that the petition lacked specific averments on invalidity of Sections 7 and 8 of the impugned Act.“I'm challenging on the ground of the constitutional principle which the court in Anoop Baranwal laid down and summarised. The constitutional requirement is an independent Election Commission”, Hansaria explained.Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for an intervenor, submitted that when the law was passed, a large number of opposition MPs were suspended, resulting in no proper debate. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, also pointed to pleadings stating that the law was passed without meaningful debate and through a voice vote. Justice Datta, however, flagged defects in the verification of the ADR petition and directed that it be cured, stating that such lapses could not be ignored in a case of this importance.During arguments, Hansaria emphasised that the independence of the Election Commission is as important as that of the judiciary. He submitted that the same principles governing judicial appointments should apply to the Election Commission. He also contended that the appointments of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and EC Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were done in haste within a day of recommendation, without providing the Leader of Opposition sufficient time to scrutinise the recommended candidates. He said that the concerned meeting was preponed, as the Union knew that the Court was set to hear petitioners' stay application against the Act the next day. He argued that such speed demonstrated excessive executive control. Justice Datta said that allegations of motive could not be accepted without material showing that the Union knew the petitioner's matter would be heard on March 15 and advanced the process accordingly. Hansaria clarified that he was not challenging the individual appointments but the vires of the Act itself, and merely highlighted the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu to show how the procedure functions when there is dominance of the executive.Hansaria further highlighted that in several statutes such as the Special Police Establishment Act, the Competition Act, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act and the Companies Act, the Chief Justice of India or other non-executive authorities are part of the selection committee.Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the law restores executive dominance over appointments and violates constitutional principles underlying free and fair elections, which form part of the basic structure. He submitted that even if the Anoop Baranwal judgment did not exist, the same arguments would apply. He contended that executive control over appointments affects Article 14 and Article 19 rights and, even a constitutional amendment cannot validate the impugned law, as any such constitutional amendment would violate basic structure of the Constitution. Bhushan argued that independence is not secured merely by providing for removal through impeachment, rather, even the process of appointment must itself be free from control by a party that is a direct stakeholder in elections. He submitted that the ruling party is the principal contestant in elections and cannot be allowed to dominate the appointment process.“I am relying on five such constitution bench judgments which said that all the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have to be independent. The government again and again tried to bring Rules which were repeatedly struck...

SC Judgment Didn't Say Law On Election Commissioners Must Be Made In A Particular Manner : Supreme Court During Hearing

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

SC Judgment Didn't Say Law On Election Commissioners Must Be Made In A Particular Manner : Supreme Court During Hearing

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers