Best man as CEC: Constitution has vested vast powers on the “fragile shoulders” of the CEC, the Supreme Court has said. It is important that “someone of strong character” is appointed to the post, it added.
The observation was made by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K M Joseph, to hear petitions seeking reforms in the system of appointing the election commissioners.
Also Read: Rozgar Melas are benefit of double engine govts: PM Modi
‘Who will appoint this person?’
“Apart from competence, what is important is that you need someone with character, someone who does not allow himself to be bulldozed. So the question is who will appoint this person? The least intrusive will be a system when there is a presence of the Chief Justice in the appointment committee. We feel his very presence will be a message that no mess-up will happen. We need the best man. And there shouldn’t be any disagreement on that. Even judges have prejudices. But at least you can expect that there will be neutrality,” said Justice Joseph.
“There have been numerous CECs and T N Seshan happens once in a while,” said the bench.
Seshan served as the chief election commissioner from December 12, 1990 till December 11, 1996.
The SC said that although the CEC’s tenure is six years, no CEC has completed his tenure since 2004. “So, what the government has been doing is that because it knows the date of birth, it ensures that the one who is appointed does not get his full six years. So, the independence gets thwarted. This trend has continued,” said the bench.
Also Read: Gauri Khan reveals the idea behind Mannat’s new nameplate
‘No vacuum in Constitution’
However, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, who appeared for the Centre, said the government is not going to oppose the appointment of the best man, but the question is how can it be done. “There is no vacuum in the Constitution” on the issue. “Presently, election commissioners are appointed by the President, on the aid and advice of the council of ministers,” he said, and added that the court must see the issue from this perspective.
Reminding the bench about the separation of powers, he said: “One set principle is that the original feature of the Constitution cannot be challenged. Matters that are open for scrutiny by this court are ones that violate fundamental rights. The court can enhance the provision, but when it comes to striking an original provision of the Constitution, that is for Parliament to debate and not the court.”
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER.
