20 March 2024 9:53 AM GMT
The Centre has opposed the batch of pleas seeking a stay on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
In an affidavit sworn by an additional secretary in the law ministry, the union government denied the petitioner's allegation that the two Election Commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14 to pre-empt any orders passed by the Court on the next day, when the matters were listed for hearing on interim relief.
This affidavit has been filed in response to interlocutory stay applications filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms in pending legal challenges against the 2023 Act. The crux of the batch of petitions revolves around the contention that the election commissioners' act overturns the constitution bench decision in Anoop Baranwal (2023).
In this case, it was observed that leaving the appointment of election commission members in the hands of the executive would be detrimental to the health of democracy and the conduct of free and fair elections. Accordingly, the court had directed that appointments to the posts of chief election commissioner and election commissioners should be made by the president on the basis of the advice tendered by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.
Marking a stark departure, the 2023 Act replaces the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The petitioners argue that this change makes the selection process vulnerable to executive influence.
The judgment in Anoop Baranwal provided for a 'stop gap' arrangement to fill what it thought was a 'vacuum' until the Parliament stepped in, the affidavit states. It adds –
Among other things, the Centre has argued that the 2023 Act is a significant improvement in the appointment process of election commissioners, asserting that it provides for a more democratic, collaborative, and inclusive exercise. It has also underscored the act's purported alignment with the principles laid down in the Anoop Baranwal case, stressing that the legislation is in harmony with the constitutional framework.
The Centre contended that the petitioners' case is based on a "fundamental fallacy" that the independence of an institution can be maintained only when the selection committee is of a "particular formulation".
".. the independence of the Election Commission, or any other organisation or authority, does not arise from and is not attributable to the presence of a judicial member in the Selection Committee," the Centre said.
Further, it has sought to dismiss claims of executive overreach and encroachment on the Election Commission's autonomy. Addressing the contention regarding the Chief Justice of India being dropped from the selection panel, the Centre has argued –
The Centre's affidavit seeks to dispel any notions of bias or ulterior motives in the appointment process of Election Commissioners. It argues that the Election Commission, as a high constitutional office, has inherent protections in the Constitution to ensure impartiality. The affidavit asserts, "The Chief Election Commissioner may not be removed from office except in like manner to a Supreme Court Judge."
The Centre argued that high constitutional functionaries must be presumed to act fairly. The Centre also invoked the doctrine of presumption of constitutionality of legislation to oppose stay.
The Supreme Court is set to hear on March 21 the pleas to stay the new law that removes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel appointing election commissioners. These stay applications were filed in the wake of the resignation of former Election Commissioner Arun Goel. During previous hearings, the apex court, while agreeing to consider the issues raised in these petitions, consistently refused to issue an immediate stay on the legislation.
Case Details
Dr Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters