Venkataramani defends EC choice at court

SAYS INTERFERENCE IS A BREECH OF TRUST IN THE INSTITUTION

IAfter hearing detailed arguments, the Supreme Court reserved the judgement on a batch of petitions seeking a collegiumlike system for the appointment of the ECs and chief election commissioner.

ndia’s Attorney General (AG), R Venkataramani, told the Supreme Court yesterday that if it were to begin to doubt every step taken by the government in the process of appointing Election Commissioners, then that has implications on the integrity and independence of the institution.

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Justice KM Joseph, and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, shot a volley of questions at the country’s top law officer in connection with the appointment of the Election Commissioner Arun Goel.

The bench posed some critical questions to the AG in connection with Goel’s appointment including about the timeline of his appointment; Goel’s name was deliberated, cleared and the process completed within a span of 24 hours.

The Centre, meanwhile, has maintained that there is no trigger point for the Supreme Court to interfere in the appointment process of the election commissioner.

Due diligence

Facing a barrage of queries, the AG replied that the appointment was not made in haste and explained that there were many instances of public appointments, which happened within 24 hours, and questioned the top court, “Are we finding a fault [in the choice]?”

The bench also asked the AG about how the Law Minister shortlisted for names for the recommendation to the Prime Minister for the post of EC, and what methodology the minister deployed to shortlist four names from the data reservoir of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), where he screened hundreds of names and then shortlisted four.

Justice Joseph told the AG that the court is concerned with the process of candidate selection, adding that the candidate may be academically brilliant but if he is “yes man” then it is a concern.

“The Law Minister prepares a panel and the PM gets to see the names,” said the bench. The AG replied that there is a process and indicated that nothing is tailor-made to suit a candidate, adding, “If we begin to doubt every step, look at the implications at the integrity and independence of the institution.”

The bench further questioned the AG about the foundation of this process (shortlisting for names from the data of DoPT). Justice Joseph asked: “How did the Law Minister zero in on these four names?” The AG replied that the process is based on seniority of the civil servants.

Justice Joseph then pointed out that even among the four names, which were shortlisted, none of the people will get six years as Election Commissioner. He told the AG, the government is required to pick people who can be appointed for six years.

Information requested

He asked if not doing so isn’t it a violation of Section 6 of the Chief Election Commissioner & Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991?

After hearing detailed arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgement on a batch of petitions seeking a collegiumlike system for the appointment of the ECs and chief election commissioner (CEC).

The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Centre that it wants to see the files relating to the recent appointment of Goel as the Election Commissioner and emphasised that it wants to see by what mechanism, “he was picked up”, and “there is no danger to produce it (files)”.