Regarding the independence of India’s top electoral body, the Supreme Court today laid out a “hypothesis” for the central government: “Do you think the Election Commissioner… and he doesn’t? do it by accident: Is it a case of a complete system failure?”
The court added that the Electoral Commissioner was “supposed to be in complete isolation”, and referred to how the government had talked about appointing a “person of qualification”.
“Character is made up of many different components… one specific trait required is independence,” it noted, and then cites how “one of the Electors, in fact, did resignation”. The court did not take the name, arguing instead that its central point was that the appointment system required “a larger body” and not just the union cabinet to decide the name. “There is a need for change.”
The Constitutional bench of five judges headed by Justice KM Joseph has been heard proposed to seek reform in the system of appointment of election commissioners. It has said that “every government appoints a agreeer” as head of the poll, “regardless of party [in power]“.
The government attorney filed, “Stray cases cannot be grounds for court intervention. To defend the position is our endeavor.”
“First, a list is prepared of all the senior officials. Then this list is sent to the Ministry of Law, which will then be forwarded to the Prime Minister,” the lawyer explained and “We need to see to what extent the courts can intervene,” said. this progress. The current system is working fine and there is no trigger point for the court to intervene in this case.”
The court has insisted that it does not say the system is incorrect. “There should be a transparency mechanism,” it added. The court also rejected the Center’s submission that appointments were “always based on seniority” and that terms were “mostly five years.”
When the court asked why the pool of candidates was “limited to civil servants only”, the government replied: “It’s convention. How can we not follow it? We can issue a visit Can you search for candidates nationwide? It can’t be.”
The government lawyer added, “The court cannot interfere with the system just because we cannot show each individual case how the appointment was made. You need to point out the circumstances in the case. that some wrong has happened. Based on probability alone, apprehension or anxiety, intervention from the court is not called for.”
Also citing the sheer extent of the system, the government said, “The whole mechanism doesn’t allow someone to cheat.”
Court, which yesterday said there should be a Chief Election Commissioner like TN Seshan – known for its aggressive electoral reforms from 1990 to 1996 – insisted on a “mechanism” for the appointment of electoral bodies. The government cited the 1991 law and previous appointment conventions proposed by the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister to the President, who would then choose an official.
The center has strongly opposed a series of pleas to seek a university-like system – such as top-level judges appointing judges – to select election commissioners. The government has argued that any such attempt would lead to an amendment of the Constitution.
However, the court pointed out that since 2004, no CEC has completed a six-year term. During the 10 years of UPA rule, there were six CECs; and in the eight years of the NDA, there have been eight. “The government is giving ECs and CECs such a short term that they are doing their bidding,” the court said.
