New Delhi: The Center told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it is a misconception that mere presence of someone from the judiciary is all that is needed in the panel for appointment. election commissioner And the Chief Election Commissioner will ensure transparency and independence.
A five-judge bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “There is a presumption that independence and impartiality will be achieved only by the presence of the judiciary, which is a wrong reading of the Constitution. The mere presence of someone from the judiciary will ensure transparency is a false statement.” ”
Mehta also told a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar that the petitioners propose that a collegium-like system with the Chief Justice of India as a member be put in place for want of legislation. EC and CEC cannot be appointed.
“This court cannot say that in the absence of a law it should be a law because the court is dealing with the constitution and not the law,” he said.
Justice Rastogi asks Mehta if he thinks whatever appointments are being made under a process in the absence of law are fair.
Mehta replied, “Yes, as a constitutional proposition the independence of the executive and the independence of the judiciary are equally sacrosanct. The principle of separation of power stems from Article 14, which means that all organs of the state are in the eyes of the constitution.” are identical.”
Justice Joseph tells Solicitor General that the Chief Justice of India is involved in the process of appointment CBI Director, then what does it mean by democracy.
Referring to the Vineet Narayan case of 1997, he said, “The judgment has been passed by this court and it has been accepted by the executive, where the selection of the CBI director was contemplated to be done by a committee.”
Mehta replied that before the Vineet Narayan case, the CBI director was only an officer and there was a vacuum in the law as to how that person should be selected.
“Their selection was not given to the highest constitutional functionaries. Hence this court intervened,” he said, adding that the current system of appointment of election commissioners and CEC is not responsive at the pre-appointment stage.
Underlining the importance of having a Chief Election Commissioner who is a “person of independent and character”, the apex court wondered whether it would not be a case of “complete breakdown of the system” if the CEC does not act against the Prime Minister charges against him.
The apex court’s remarks came after the Center claimed that the current system of appointing election commissioners and chief election commissioner on the basis of seniority is “doing quite well”.
The appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel also came under scrutiny by the apex court, which sought original records relating to his appointment from the Centre, saying it wanted to know if there was any “hanky-panky”. During the day-long hearing, the bench said that involving the Chief Justice of India in the consultative process for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner would ensure the independence of the Election Commission.
The apex court was of the view that any ruling party at the Center “wants to retain itself in power” and may appoint a ‘yes man’ to the post under the existing dispensation.
The court was hearing petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (EC) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
A five-judge bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “There is a presumption that independence and impartiality will be achieved only by the presence of the judiciary, which is a wrong reading of the Constitution. The mere presence of someone from the judiciary will ensure transparency is a false statement.” ”
Mehta also told a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar that the petitioners propose that a collegium-like system with the Chief Justice of India as a member be put in place for want of legislation. EC and CEC cannot be appointed.
“This court cannot say that in the absence of a law it should be a law because the court is dealing with the constitution and not the law,” he said.
Justice Rastogi asks Mehta if he thinks whatever appointments are being made under a process in the absence of law are fair.
Mehta replied, “Yes, as a constitutional proposition the independence of the executive and the independence of the judiciary are equally sacrosanct. The principle of separation of power stems from Article 14, which means that all organs of the state are in the eyes of the constitution.” are identical.”
Justice Joseph tells Solicitor General that the Chief Justice of India is involved in the process of appointment CBI Director, then what does it mean by democracy.
Referring to the Vineet Narayan case of 1997, he said, “The judgment has been passed by this court and it has been accepted by the executive, where the selection of the CBI director was contemplated to be done by a committee.”
Mehta replied that before the Vineet Narayan case, the CBI director was only an officer and there was a vacuum in the law as to how that person should be selected.
“Their selection was not given to the highest constitutional functionaries. Hence this court intervened,” he said, adding that the current system of appointment of election commissioners and CEC is not responsive at the pre-appointment stage.
Underlining the importance of having a Chief Election Commissioner who is a “person of independent and character”, the apex court wondered whether it would not be a case of “complete breakdown of the system” if the CEC does not act against the Prime Minister charges against him.
The apex court’s remarks came after the Center claimed that the current system of appointing election commissioners and chief election commissioner on the basis of seniority is “doing quite well”.
The appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel also came under scrutiny by the apex court, which sought original records relating to his appointment from the Centre, saying it wanted to know if there was any “hanky-panky”. During the day-long hearing, the bench said that involving the Chief Justice of India in the consultative process for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner would ensure the independence of the Election Commission.
The apex court was of the view that any ruling party at the Center “wants to retain itself in power” and may appoint a ‘yes man’ to the post under the existing dispensation.
The court was hearing petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (EC) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).