‘Will lead to chaos’: SC refuses to stay appointment of new ECs

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, March 21

Noting that it would lead to “chaos and uncertainty” in the midst of the Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the appointment of Election Commissioners Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu under the recently enacted law that excluded the CJI from the Prime Minister-led selection panel.

Respond to pleas in 6 weeks, centre told

The Bench, however, said it would examine the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act. Asking the Centre to respond to the petitions in six weeks, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.

“Now they (two new ECs) have been appointed… elections are round the corner... It’s a question of balance of convenience. We have to see what the effect is if we do (stay) it and what are the consequences which will follow…. There are no allegations against the persons (ECs) appointed,” a Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta said.

“We dismiss the applications for stay… We will give reasons later,” said the Bench, which also refused to grant an interim stay on the operation of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, saying the Election Commission was not under the “thumb of executive”.

“At this stage, we cannot stay the legislation or put it under suspension by way of interim order. It would lead to uncertainty and chaos in case of stay,” it said, dismissing the pleas for stay filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Association for Democratic Reforms.

The Bench, however, said it would examine the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act. Asking the Centre to respond to the petitions in six weeks, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.

On Thursday, the Bench posed certain questions on the procedure adopted in appointing the new ECs, saying there could have been an opportunity given for the names to be examined.

“This could have easily been avoided by giving two-three days. You should have gone more slowly,” it said.

Noting that the search committee could have been activated earlier, the Bench pointed out that there was a disparity in procedure adopted for filling the two vacancies.

“For one vacancy, there are five names. For two, you send only six. Why not 10? This is what appears from the record. They can consider 200 names, but what is the time given? Maybe two hours… 200 names to be considered in two hours? You could have been transparent,” it noted.

“We are on procedure... Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We are dealing with the Representation of People Act, which according to me is the highest after the Constitution,” Justice Datta told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#Lok Sabha #Supreme Court