Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The Centre told the Supreme Court that the Constitution does not require the inclusion of judicial members in the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, asserting that the presence of a judge on the panel is a “legislative choice” and not a constitutional mandate.
In a counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the Centre defended the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which governs appointments to the Election Commission.
advertisement
The affidavit was submitted in response to a batch of petitions challenging the law, which replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet minister in the three-member selection committee.
Under the 2023 law, which came into effect on January 2, 2024, the President appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners based on the recommendation of a panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the single largest opposition party.
“It must be noted that the Constitution does not mandate judicial representation on the Election Commission’s appointment committees. Inclusion of a member representing the judiciary is a legislative choice, not a constitutional imperative,” the Centre said in its affidavit filed on May 13.
Referring to Article 324 of the Constitution, the Centre argued that the Constitution does not prescribe any fixed structure for the appointment panel and leaves it to Parliament to enact a law governing the process.
“It must be noted that the Constitution does not mandate judicial representation on the Election Commission’s appointment committees. Inclusion of a member representing the judiciary is a legislative choice, not a constitutional imperative,” the affidavit stated.
The government further argued that the independence of the Election Commission stems from its constitutional status, security of tenure, removal safeguards and statutory protections, and not from the inclusion of judges in the appointment process.
“Substantive independence of the Election Commission arises from its constitutional status, security of tenure, removal safeguards and statutory protections of its functions and emoluments. The 2023 Act, while preserving these features, adds procedural transparency in their appointment,” the affidavit noted.
The affidavit also said that any suggestion that judicial participation was necessary to validate appointments “misconceives the separation of powers and Parliament’s role under Article 324”.
The Centre maintained that the 2023 law preserved all constitutional safeguards while introducing procedural transparency in appointments.
The government further told the court that the Supreme Court’s March 2023 judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which directed that the CJI be included in the selection panel until Parliament enacted a law, was only an interim arrangement and could not bind Parliament while framing legislation under Article 324(2).
“The interim period arrangement did not have the status of a declaration of law. Suggestions of such nature cannot be elevated to the status of positive legislation by the courts,” the affidavit said.
Rejecting allegations made by petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, the Centre said there was no evidence to suggest that the absence of a judicial member would compromise the fairness or independence of the Election Commission.
“The independence of the CEC or an election commissioner, more than the manner of selection, depends on the individual’s functioning and his qualities of professional excellence,” it added.
In its affidavit, the government said there is no constitutional requirement for members of the judiciary to be part of the appointment committee and rejected allegations that the selection process prescribed under the 2023 law would be biased.
The Centre further dismissed claims that Parliament deliberately suspended several MPs during the passage of the legislation, calling the allegations “without any basis” and constitutionally and legally untenable.
Earlier this month, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma declined the Centre’s request to postpone the hearing, and said that the issue related to appointments to the Election Commission carried significant constitutional importance.
“This matter is more important than any other matter,” Justice Datta observed during the proceedings.
During the hearing, the court asked petitioners to submit a list of constitutional posts where the Chief Justice of India is part of the selection panel to ensure fairness in appointments.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for Congress leader Jaya Thakur, told the court that the details were already included in the plea and said a separate compilation would also be filed.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
