2024-03-23 00:54:32
New Delhi : The Supreme Court has rejected the petition challenging the appointments of election commissioners. The top court said that general elections are about to be held. In such a situation, this will create a situation of uncertainty and chaos. The Supreme Court bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna also refused to grant an interim stay on the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioner Act 2023. The court said, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had not said anywhere in the 2023 decision that there should be a member of the judiciary in the committee formed for the appointment of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner. In the decision, a panel was formed in which the PM, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were kept.
Demand for ban on new law
The court said that the purpose of the decision was that until the Parliament makes a law in this matter, this system will be applicable. We will hear the petition challenging the validity of the law related to appointment. The court has asked the central government to file a reply. The bench said, the petitioner had first sought a stay on the new law and later filed an application seeking a stay on the appointments made under the new law. Elections have been held continuously since independence. Many excellent election commissioners have been appointed. Earlier the Election Commissioner was appointed by the Executive. Now it has happened under a new law.
Asking questions to the Centre, the Supreme Court refused to ban the appointment of election commissioners.
Committee should have got more time: Court
The Supreme Court questioned the Central Government on the process adopted for the appointment of two new Election Commissioners. The Supreme Court said that some more time should have been given in the process of appointing election commissioners. The committee should have been given more time to understand the background of all the candidates. It is noteworthy that on March 14, retired IAS officers Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu have been made Election Commissioners. Under the new law of the Central Government, the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister nominated by the PM have been included in the selection committee. The Chief Justice was not kept in it. A hearing was held in the Supreme Court on the petition filed by ADR and Congress leader Jaya Thakur against this law.
Central Government’s clarification in the Supreme Court, CJI is not necessary in the appointment of Election Commissioner.
There will be executive interference: Petitioner
Senior advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the petitioner. He argued that the Supreme Court had given the order for the appointment of the Election Commissioner in the Anup Burnwal case. It was said that the panel will include the PM, Leader of Opposition and Chief Justice. In the law made by the Central Government, the Chief Justice was not kept in the panel but in his place a Union Minister nominated by the PM was kept. Such a change would lead to executive interference in the appointment of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner and is dangerous. On behalf of ADR, Prashant Bhushan argued that there is a question on the committee meeting held. The committee showed great haste. All this happened in such a way that the petitioner’s application became useless. The name was decided a day before the hearing date.
No stay on CAA, SC asks Center to reply in 3 weeks
Court said, there are no charges against those who were appointed
The Supreme Court said that there are no allegations against those who have been appointed. Now they have been appointed and elections are about to be held. We are not stopping the law. We have issued a notice. The Supreme Court said that there are two subjects. One is whether the law is within the constitutional ambit. Second is whether the appointment process is correct. The court said that two or three days should have been given for the appointment process. The speed should have been kept a little slow. The Solicitor General said that 200 names were considered. The bench said that 200 names were considered in two hours. There should have been more transparency. Justice Dipankar Dutta said that we are talking about the process. It is important to have justice, it is also important to see justice being done. Ultimately the court rejected the petition challenging the appointment.