Centre on pleas against ECs appointments: ‘Political controversy sought to be created’

The Centre rejected the petitioners' allegation that Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu were ‘hastily’ appointed as ECs on March 14

The Narendra Modi government on Wednesday opposed a batch of pleas seeking stay on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which had dropped the Chief Justice of India from the panel selecting election commissioners. It alleged that a political controversy was sought to be created on the basis of “bare, unsupported and pernicious statements”.

The government in its affidavit before the Supreme Court argued that it would not have been humanly not possible for one CEC to discharge his functions alone

In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the government rejected the petitioners' allegation that Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu were ‘hastily’ appointed on March 14 to pre-empt any orders passed by the apex court, Live Law reported.

The government argued that it would not have been humanly not possible for one CEC to discharge his functions alone due to the general election of such wide magnitude.

The government had filed in reply to the plea filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) against the Act.

The plea had observed that leaving the appointment of the EC members in the hands of executive would be “detrimental to the health of democracy and the conduct of free and fair elections.”

The court had directed that the appointments to the posts of CEC and election commissioners should be made by the President on the advice by a committee comprising the prime minister, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.

‘More democratic, collaborative & inclusive exercise’: Govt

In its affidavit, the Centre defended the 2023 act, calling it a “more democratic, collaborative, and inclusive exercise” in the appointment of election commissioners.

While opposing the plea, the government stated that the petitioners' case is based on a ‘fundamental fallacy’ that the independence of an institution is maintained only when the selection committee is of a particular formulation. It also rejected claims of ‘executive overreach’ and ‘encroachment’ on EC's autonomy.