The Supreme Court is of the view that in the present case a vacuum has been created due to structural reasons, as no party in power wants to end its monopoly on appointments to the monitoring body.
Image Credit source: Social Media
last week Supreme Court issued a ruling that Election Commission The process of appointing the members of the The appointment of the three members of the Election Commission will now be done jointly by the Chief Justice of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House and the Prime Minister, although the final decision will rest with the President. Everyone is appreciating this decision of the court and speaking in favor of the independence of the Election Commission.
In support of its decision, the court has argued that in view of the constitutional history, it is strongly against the executive having complete appointment powers. The court has said that the Election Commission is a responsible institution for the fairness of the electoral process. Its existence lies in its freedom.
How was the appointment till now
Till now, for the appointment of Election Commissioner, a person was recommended to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, after which his approval was given by the President. But now this process has been changed. However, this decision will not have any effect on the current Chief Election Commissioner and both the commissioners. If no challenge is given in the court, then in the coming time, the appointment of CEC and members will be done by the new rules.
The court also asked the Parliament to enact a law
one in the election commission Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) And since 1993, there is a system of two additional election commissioners. The court, while evaluating the debates of the Constituent Assembly, said that the Parliament should make a law on appointments in the later days. Although the Parliament has not yet made any law regarding the appointments. Obviously, the decision of the court gives significance to the Election Commission. The ball is now in the Parliament’s court to improve its electoral health.
Monopoly on appointments will end
The court believes that the vacancy in the present case exists for structural reasons, as no party in power wants to end its monopoly on appointments to the body set up to oversee it. The Court remarked that since political parties in their hunger for power do not try to strengthen the independence of the Commission, it should do so.
The court made a strong remark that in the era of criminalization of politics, increasing influence of money power and shameless bias of some section of the media, this decision is a step taken towards filling the constitutional vacuum.
public rights should not be violated
The right to vote is akin to a citizen’s right to freedom of speech and equal treatment – it is enforced and ensured by the commission. But when the commission fails to achieve the dignity of electoral integrity because of its lack of competence, it is a failure of a democratic institution. Also, the rights of equality of citizens are violated.
Responsible organization should avoid failure
The Court said that the institutional failure is not only of the Commission, but also of the fundamental constitutional values like rule of law, equality and secularism which are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Securing the independence of the Election Commission on this basis is recognized as a constitutional mandate and this judgment fulfills it.
Although some experts are now debating on the issue that the court should refrain from interfering. Because making laws on appointments is a parliamentary prerogative. According to some commentators, the appointment of the new commissioner will show concrete results, it cannot be said with certainty.