The Centre in its reply to the Supreme Court in petitions seeking a stay on appointment of the Election Commissioners said that the pleas are politically motivated. While opposing the demand to cancel the appointment of Election Commissioners on gounds that the selection panel excluded the Chief Justice Of India the Centre told the Supreme Court that the qualification of the newly appointed Election Commissioners is not questioned and the plea is only filed for garnering political mileage.
The Centre further said that the argument that the ECI will be independent only when there are judges in the selection panel is faulty. In its response filed in the top court, the Centre said that deliberations of the high level committee under the CEC and EC Act, 2023, are collaborative and discussions took place at the actual meeting itself.
On Friday, the top court had heard the petitioners and asked Centre to file a response in the case.
Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners in the case, argued that the two new ECs were appointed despite the validity of the law under challenge before the top court.
The bench of Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih responded, that its is something for the Centre to answer why they went ahead when the matter was pending before us.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre, told the apex court that he does not have copies of the applications moved by the petitioners, which included Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the non-profit Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
The ADR and Congress general secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee Jaya Thakur have moved the top court against the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
This petitions were filed in the backdrop of the former Election Commissioner Arun Goel's resignation on the heels of Lok Sabha elections.
Last week, the high-level selection panel headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi appointed new election commissioners.
An instant Writ Petition by ADR has been filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act,2023 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act, 2023”) particularly its Section 7 as being violative of Article 14, basic features of the Constitution and for overruling the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in AnoopBaranwal v. Union of India (2023) without altering the basis.
The petition contends that in March 2023, the Supreme Court in AnoopBaranwal v. Union of India (Supra) held that leaving appointment of the members of Election Commission (who are critical for our electoral democracy) in the hands of the executive would be seriously detrimental to the health of our democracy and conduct of free and fair election.
"This Hon’ble Court held that the Election Commission should be fearlessly and robustly independent and such independence would be undermined if the selection process is done by an executive who has a critical stake in the electoral process. It thus directed that in order to fill the vacuum (in absence of a legislation), the appointment to the posts of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the LokSabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest party in the Opposition in the LokSabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India," the ADR petition read.