New Delhi [India], May 7 : The Supreme Court on Thursday said that its judgement which allowed the Chief Justice of India in the selection panel for Election Commissioners, was meant to fill a vacuum until Parliament enacted a law and did not mandate any particular structure for such a law.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said the judgment did not lay down that Parliament must frame the law in any particular manner.
The apex court today was hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the 2023 law relating to the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), which dropped the CJI from the selection panel for Election Commissioners.
During the hearing, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for Congress leader Jaya Thakur, challenging the Act, said that the independence of the Election Commission is as important as that of the judiciary.
The same principles governing judicial appointments should apply to the Election Commission, said the advocate.
The bench also termed it as "tyranny of the elected", the failure of successive governments to enact a law for the appointment of the CEC and ECs until the order was passed in 2023.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), said that every government took advantage of the absence of law so that they could misuse the appointment.
The arguments in the case will continue on May 14.
In 2024, the apex court had declined to put on hold the two Election Commissioners' appointment under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The pleas were filed in the apex court seeking a stay on the Act by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Jaya Thakur (General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee), Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram, Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha, and advocate Gopal Singh.
The pleas challenged the Election Commissioners' law that has dropped the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel for appointing the CEC and other Election Commissioners (ECs).
The petitions stated that the provisions of the enactment are violative of the principle of free and fair elections since it does not provide an "independent mechanism" for the appointment of the members of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The petitions said the Act excludes the Chief Justice of India from the process of appointment of the members of ECI and it's in violation of the March 2, 2023 verdict of the top court which had ordered that the appointment of members of the ECI be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha till a law is made by the Parliament.
By excluding the CJI from the process, the judgement of the Supreme Court stands diluted as the Prime Minister, and his nominee will always be "the deciding factor" in the appointments, said the petitions.
The petitions in particular challenged Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provisions lay down the procedure for the appointment of ECI members.
They sought direction to the Centre to include the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee for the appointment of the CEC and ECs, which currently comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The Act replaced the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.