E-Paper
SC junks PIL on Arun Goel’s appointment as poll commissioner
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the appointment of Arun Goel as an election commissioner, stating that a Constitution bench had already examined the process and refrained from passing any adverse orders. The court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the appointment of Arun Goel as an election commissioner (EC), noting that a Constitution bench had in March already gone into the process of his appointment and yet refrained from passing any adverse orders.
“It won’t be appropriate for us to interfere now. The Constitution bench has already gone into it and still chose not to pass that order...This has already been examined. A second round won’t be the correct way to go about it,” said a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, dismissing a public interest litigation filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
While advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO, pressed that the court should go through the selection process by summoning the requisite files, the bench pointed out that this course was adopted by the Constitution bench previously.
“Why should we go into it the second time? It will amount to stepping into their shoes virtually. They have gone into the file and all the other details. They still chose not to pass any order. If they wanted, they could have done it, but they did not,” the bench told Bhushan.
In its order, the bench recorded: “The Constitution bench did not pass any effective order disturbing the appointment (of Goel) though the relevant files were taken into account. We do not find any reason to go into the matter again. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”
In its March judgment, the Constitution bench of five-judges ruled that election commissioners and the chief election commissioner (CEC) will henceforth be chosen by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition (LoP), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), till Parliament passes a law on the appointments.
The ruling, which made the process for selection of ECs and CEC similar to that of the head of the Central Bureau of Investigation, came against the backdrop of frequent complaints by opposition parties, alleging bias on part of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
While hearing a clutch of petitions seeking directive to strip the Executive’s discretion with an independent mechanism to appoint the CEC and ECs, the court had also asked the Centre to produce the file related to Goel’s appointment as an EC on November 18, 2022, even as the bench was seized of the matter. At that time, the top court had also clarified that it will not scrutinise the correctness of Goel’s appointment but wished to see how the government appoints CEC and ECs.
In its March 2 judgment, the bench noted that not only he was appointed in a hastily fashion while the matter was pending before the court, he would have a tenure of a little over two years whereas the law stipulates a six-year tenure for ensuring the officer’s independence and stability of term.
To be sure, the Constitution bench did not interfere with Goel’s appointment despite the unpropitious observations– a factor that weighed in with the two-judge bench when it junked ADR’s petition.
ADR’s petition, relying on the adverse observations of the Constitution bench, contended that the Centre and ECI “have through their acts of omissions and commission participated in a carefully orchestrated ‘selection procedure’ for their own benefits”.
“Owing his appointment as election commissioner to the arbitrariness exercised by the Executive, the appointment of Mr Goel is overshadowed by the perception of a ‘yes man’,” it added.
