EC appointments

It is astonishing Parliament has seldom felt the need to regulate the process of appointments to the Election Commission. Equally surprising, no political party has ever questioned the ruling party’s right to pick whosoever it wants to for as important a constitutional body as the Election Commission. Politicians who seldom carry out a polite debate, or agree on any issue, or can find fault with electronic voting machines (EVMs) on losing an election have no objection to the possibility of a ruling party packing the EC with its favourites. That this has not happened so far is no guarantee that it never will. At least the Supreme Court does not seem willing to let this arrangement continue. It has presciently asked the Centre to put in place some credible mechanism for the appointments or it would do so.  

Defending the status quo and opposing any possible judicial intervention, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar contends that since there has been no controversy till date, there is no need for any change. It is a regular practice with every political party in power to hand over EC posts to civil servants. Barring a Seshan here and or a Lyngdoh there, civil servants have sprung no surprises. They are trained to be respectful to authority and know how the system works, and who can be, or cannot be, touched. State-level officers assigned to the Election Commission have often got away by openly serving the interests of the party or candidate of their choice. Political leaders do at times make state-level complaints but rarely have they doubted the independence or neutrality of the Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioners. 

But there is a valid case for change. There is palpable merit in the court's argument that “if there is a formal law and a panel to select the CBI chief, then why not for the CEC and ECs?” The apex court has rightly claimed that if no law has been passed as mandated by Article 324(2), “the expectation is that Parliament will make the law” and if Parliament has not done that, “then can't the court lay down the procedure?” The Centre is left with few options but to close this gap.