‘Why the haste’: SC on new EC’S appointment

NEW DELHI: A Constitution bench in the Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the “tearing hurry” and “haste” shown by the central government in appointing Arun Goel as an election commissioner (EC) on November 18, wondering if the Union law minister Kiren Rijiju followed any yardstick to zero in on Goel from the pool of four officers picked for the selection.

The bench’s poser closely follows the law minister’s strong and consistent criticism of the apex court’s model of selecting judges through the collegium system. At various instances during the last one month, Rijiju commented that the SC collegium appoints people who are known to the judges; called the collegium system “opaque”; and described the Indian selection system as the only one where judges appoint judges.

“What we can find from the file is that according to database of serving and retired officers, the name of Mr Goel was suggested on November 18. This is done by the minister of law and justice (Rijiju). So, he picks up the name from the panel of four names. The file moves on the same day, from the ministry to another officer, and finally to the Prime Minister who endorses the name. It is done in such a haste, tearing urgency that all of this done in one day,” the fivejudge bench headed by justice KM Joseph asked attorney general (AG) R Venkataramani.

The bench added: “Can you show us from May 15, when the

post first fell vacant, to November 18, what did you do? What prevailed upon the government that you did this appointment superfast on one day? Same day process, same day clearance, same day application, same day appointment. File has not even travelled for 24 hours. Lightning fast! What kind of evaluation would have been there in less than 24 hours.”

To be sure, the top court already clarified on Wednesday that it will not scrutinise the correctness of Goel’s appointment but wished to see how the government appoints Chief Election Commissioner (Cec)and ECS.

Even as it reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions demanding an independent selection mechanism to appoint the CEC and ECS, the bench, which included justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, posed a specific query as to how the law minister created a pool of four bureaucrats and finally found Goel the most suited for the appointment.

“Tell us how did the law minister prepare a panel of four names? How did the minister, using whatever mechanism you may have, zero in on just four names when there could several

other officers similarly situated? Were there any criteria for the law minister to pick four names? Kindly, enlighten us how the law minister picked these four names,” it asked the AG.

Venkataramani attempted to justify the process, arguing that the pool of officers was created on the basis of several factors, including their seniority, age, and suitability and tenure. “I am satisfied that due process has been followed. The government consulted me before it made the appointment and I gave an opinion that they can go ahead,” said the AG. But the bench remained unimpressed.