Dire Need of Change in the Process of Appointment of EC’s!

Supreme Court judge Justice K.M. Joseph on Wednesday disagreed with the counsel for the Election Commission of India, who said that the right to vote is a statutory right and not a constitutional right. Justice Joseph said, we want to see what was the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner. The file of his appointment should be brought before the Bench

There is a dire need of change in the process of appointment of election commissioners. So that they can perform their duties independently and impartially. The Supreme Court has said that if the Election Commissioner has asked to take action against Prime Minister, they do not come to do so. Wouldn’t this be a case of complete breakdown of the system? The Election Commission was considered to be completely untouchable” the Court said. The Government was told to appoint a “person of character”

The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph has been hearing petitions seeking reforms in the system of appointing election commissioners. It has said “every government appoints a yes man” as the poll body chief, “irrespective of the party.

The Supreme Court said , Character consists of various components… one particular characteristic required is independence,” it noted, and then cited how “one of the Election Commissioners, in fact, resigned”. The court did not take names, rather arguing its central point that the appointment system requires “a larger body” than just the union cabinet to decide on names. “There is a dire need for change .”On the independence of India’s top poll body, the Supreme Court today had pointed “hypothesis” for the central government: “Do you think the Election Commissioner… if he’s asked to take on none less than the Prime Minister — it’s just example — and he doesn’t come around to doing it: Will it not be a case of complete breakdown of the system?”

The government’s Counsel submitted, “Stray instances cannot be the grounds for the court to interfere. To safeguard the position is our endeavour.”

Government Counsel Explained to Bench that Election Commissioners appoinment system is free and fair proces. First a list is prepared of all senior bureaucrats. And then the list is sent to the Law Ministry which is then forwarded to the PM. “We need to see to what extent the court can get into this process. The existing system is working fine and there is no trigger point for the court to intervene in this case.”

The court has stressed that it wasn’t saying the system is not correct. “There should be a transparent mechanism,” it added. The court also took exception to the Centre’s submission that the appointments are “always based on seniority” and that the tenure is “mostly 5 years”.

When the court asked why the pool of candidates is “confined to just civil servants”, the government counsel replied, “That’s the convention. How do we not follow it ? Can we bring in a national poll of candidates? It’s impossible.”

The government lawyer added, “The court cannot interfere in the system only because we cannot show every single file how the appointment was done. You need to show instances wherein some wrong has happened. Merely on likelihood, apprehension or anxiety, interference from the court is not called for.”

The court, which yesterday said there should a be Chief Election Commissioner like TN Seshan — known for aggressive electoral reforms from 1990 to 1996 — has been insisting on a “mechanism” for the poll body appointments. The government has cited a 1991 law and past conventions of appointment recommended by the PM-led cabinet to the President, who then picks an officer.

The Centre has strongly opposed the batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system — such as senior-most judges appointing judges — for the selection of election commissioners. Any such attempt will amount to amending the Constitution, the government has argued.

There is a dire need of change in the process of appointment of election
commissioners. So that they can perform their duties independently and
impartially. The Supreme Court has said that if the Election Commissioner has
asked to take action against Prime Minister, they do not come to do so. Wouldn’t
this be a case of complete breakdown of the system? The Election Commission was
considered to be completely untouchable” the Court said. The Government
was told to appoint a “person of character”

The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph has been
hearing petitions seeking reforms in the system of appointing election
commissioners. It has said “every government appoints a yes man” as the poll
body chief, “irrespective of the party.

The Supreme Court said , Character consists of various components… one
particular characteristic required is independence,” it noted, and then
cited how “one of the Election Commissioners, in fact, resigned”. The court did
not take names, rather arguing its central point that the appointment system
requires “a larger body” than just the union cabinet to decide on
names. “There is a dire need for change.”On the independence of
India’s top poll body, the Supreme Court today had pointed
“hypothesis” for the central government: “Do you think the Election
Commissioner… if he’s asked to take on none less than the Prime Minister — it’s
just example — and he doesn’t come around to doing it: Will it not be a case of
complete breakdown of the system?”

The government’s Counsel submitted, “Stray instances cannot be the grounds
for the court to interfere. To safeguard the position is our endeavour.”

Government Counsel Explained to Bench that Election Commissioners appoinment
system is free and fair proces. First a list is prepared of all senior
bureaucrats. And then the list is sent to the Law Ministry which is then
forwarded to the PM. “We need to see to what extent the court can get into
this process. The existing system is working fine and there is no trigger point
for the court to intervene in this case.”

The court has stressed that it wasn’t saying the system is not correct.
“There should be a transparent mechanism,” it added. The court also took
exception to the Centre’s submission that the appointments are “always based on
seniority” and that the tenure is “mostly 5 years”.

When the court asked why the pool of candidates is “confined to just
civil servants”, the government counsel replied, “That’s the
convention. How do we not follow it ? Can we bring in a national poll of
candidates? It’s impossible.”

The government lawyer added, “The court cannot interfere in the system
only because we cannot show every single file how the appointment was done. You
need to show instances wherein some wrong has happened. Merely on likelihood,
apprehension or anxiety, interference from the court is not called for.”

The court, which yesterday said there should a be Chief Election
Commissioner like TN Seshan — known for aggressive electoral reforms from 1990
to 1996 — has been insisting on a “mechanism” for the poll body
appointments. The government has cited a 1991 law and past conventions of
appointment recommended by the PM-led cabinet to the President, who then picks
an officer.

The Centre has strongly opposed the batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like
system — such as senior-most judges appointing judges — for the selection of
election commissioners. Any such attempt will amount to amending the
Constitution, the government has argued.