The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as Election Commissioner.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti declined to issue notice in the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), noting that a Constitution Bench of the court had already deliberated on Mr. Goel’s appointment and had ultimately chosen not to invalidate it.
In March, a Constitution Bench established that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President based on advice from a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the single largest party in Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.
The five-judge Bench emphasized that the Election Commission of India required “honest, independent” Commissioners who possess the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and who can courageously challenge powerful entities while remaining steadfast in the path of righteousness.
Justice Khanna acknowledged that the March ruling had prospective implications and might not be applicable to Mr. Goel’s case, as his appointment had already been finalized by the time the Constitution Bench verdict was delivered.
Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza, representing ADR contended that the entire process of selecting the Election Commissioner, which culminated in Mr. Goel’s appointment, was completed within a single day, between November 18 and November 19 of the previous year. The petitioner contended that the appointment was “arbitrary and violative of institutional integrity and independence of the Election Commission of India.”
The petitioner claimed that this action had infringed Article 14 and Article 324(2) of the Constitution of India, read in conjunction with Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
Mr. Goel’s retirement was slated for December 31, 2022. While the government had asserted that Mr. Goel was the youngest among the four shortlisted candidates, the petitioner alleged that there were 160 officers from the 1985 batch, some of whom were younger than him.
The petition noted that Mr. Goel’s voluntary retirement on November 18, right at the inception of the selection process, displayed an “extraordinarily remarkable foresight.” Mr. Bhushan raised the question of whether the entire “selection procedure” was predetermined. He pointed out that even the Constitution Bench had been puzzled by how Mr. Goel had applied for voluntary retirement on November 18 if he was not privy to the proposal to appoint him.
The petition underscored that Mr. Goel’s tenure did not align with the six-year mandate stipulated by Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
Mr. Bhushan contended that the arbitrary nature of the selection process had left Mr. Goel “indebted to the Union of India for their acts of favoritism and cannot discharge his functions as Election Commissioner in a fair and neutral manner. In such circumstances, his appointment affects the independence and institutional integrity of the Election Commission of India.”
