New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Thursday asked probing questions to the Centre regarding the procedure adopted in the appointment of two new election commissioners, and pointed out that the matter of concern is the manner in which appointments were made.
The apex court also remarked that selection committee members should have been given more time to examine the candidates shortlisted for the appointment. The apex court stressed that Centre has to be careful on these appointments as these are constitutional.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said it could not stay the legislation just before the upcoming general election, as “this will only lead to chaos and uncertainty”. However, the bench emphasised that the Centre could have been more “transparent” in the procedure adopted for the appointment of two new election commissioners.
“The other thing is the procedure which has been adopted. One of the ways for selection is the opportunity for all the members on the selection committee to examine the names. You give them (names) on March 14, something which they (petitioners) have a point there…”, said Justice Khanna. The bench accepted petitioners’ contention that the selection committee members should have been given more time to examine the names shortlisted for the appointment.
Justice Datta queried Solicitor General Tushar Mehta about the search committee. “All 200 names go before all the members of the committee and it is open for any member...”, said Mehta.
However, Justice Khanna said this could have been easily avoided by giving two or three days after giving the names to the committee. Mehta stressed that the process did not start after an application by the petitioners seeking a stay, instead the process started in February and “we have to do the reverse counting as June 16, 2024, when the new Parliament will be constituted”.
Justice Khanna said “you should have gone a little more slowly”. “For selecting one you keep (the meeting) on March 15, and for selecting two you advance it to March 14”, said Justice Datta. “The search committee should have been activated earlier. Search committee you cannot keep right till the end….”, said Justice Khanna.
The bench said, “any appointment of this nature must give every member of the committee, right to put their views. Their views are important…” “Here is another thing, for one vacancy five names (by search committee) and for two vacancies it is only 6, why not 10. This is the language of the statute….”, said Justice Datta.
“You have to be careful on these appointments, these are constitutional appointments. Parliament has enacted a law; it also means that the person who is a member of the selection committee must have a fair share to understand the background of the persons and put across his views. That is important, makes no difference five days here or there….”, said Justice Khanna, further querying whether there is a provision that elections have to be declared by a particular date. Mehta replied in negative. Mehta said there are four states that are also scheduled in addition to the general election, and it is humongous work.
The bench said, “why not allow people to raise their voices that this is not fair, transparent”. Mehta said the notification for seven phase election was issued on March 16.
“What was the matter of concern, the manner in which it's been done, it could have been avoided not only reference to what happened in the selection committee….maybe one day or two days here and there would not have mattered. Once the matter was mentioned here, better to defer it by a day or two. When the person (Leader of Opposition) on the selection committee says 'I want some time'”, said Justice Khanna. Mehta replied that "experience is delay and delay".