New Delhi:Opposing pleas seeking a stay on the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that the independence of the Election Commission, or any other organisation or authority, does not arise from and is not attributable to the presence of a judicial member on the selection committee.
The pleas have argued that the appointment of two new election commissioners should be as per the apex court’s judgement, which mandated the presence of the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee.
In a written response, Additional Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, said: “The case of the petitioners is premised on one fundamental fallacy that the independence can only be maintained in any authority when the selection committee is of a particular formulation”.
"The independence of the Election Commission, or any other organisation or authority, does not arise from and is not attributable to the presence of a judicial member on the selection committee," it added.
The government said that it is submitted that equally, the presence of senior government functionaries on the selection committee cannot in and of itself be a ground to automatically assume bias on behalf of the committee.
“It is submitted that the high constitutional functionaries ought to be presumed to act fairly and in good faith in the public interest. To indicate, as the petitioners suggest, that a selection committee without judicial members, would invariably be biased is wholly incorrect”, said the written response. The government’s response stressed that such an argument would read an implied limitation into the otherwise plenary power of Article 324 (2), which is impermissible.
The government said it should be kept in mind that the Election Commission of India has been able to function neutrally and effectively even during the era of full executive discretion in appointment. It added that as a high constitutional office, the chief election commissioner enjoys protection that is inbuilt into the Constitution and which enables him to act impartially.
“It is submitted that the allegations of disingenuous motive and premeditation on the part of the government are wholly without basis. It is well settled that no law duly made by the competent legislature can be challenged on the ground that it was made with an ulterior motive”, said the government’s response.