Supreme Court questions 'lightning speed' with which Centre appointed Arun Goel as EC

New Delhi, November 24

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the “tearing hurry” and “lightning speed” with which the Central Government appointed Punjab cadre IAS officer Arun Goel as an Election Commissioner even as Attorney General R Venkataramani defended the mechanism followed in appointing the CEC and ECs.

“On 18th (November), we hear the case… on the same day you move the file, and the same day the PM says ‘I recommend his name’… What kind of evaluation is this? Why this urgency?” a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice KM Joseph said after perusing the file relating to Goel’s appointment.

From 4 names, how was Goel picked?

SC Bench asked the AG how four names were recommended from which one person (Goel) was finally chosen.

How do you actually select?

“Someone who was about to be superannuated in Dec. He was the youngest among the four names… How did you select?” Justice Joseph asked.

“We don’t have anything against this individual. This man, in fact, is excellent in terms of academics… a gold medallist in mathematics, which is my favourite subject… but we are concerned with the mechanism of appointment,” Justice Joseph said. A 1985-batch officer, Goel was due to retire on December 31, 2022. He, however, took voluntary retirement on November 18 and was appointed as Election Commissioner a day later. He took charge of his new office on November 21. With an over five-year tenure, Goel would be in line to succeed Rajiv Kumar as the next CEC after the latter demits office in February 2025.

‘All in a day, why such urgency?’

On 18th (November), we hear the case… on the same day you move the file, and the same day the PM says ‘I recommend his name’… What kind of evaluation is this? Why this urgency? —Constitution Bench

Can’t doubt every appointment: AG

The issue has to be looked into in entirety. If we start doubting every appointment… look at the implications for the institution’s reputation. —R Venkataramani, Attorney general

Pointing out that the vacancy arose on May 15 and the appointment took place in one day on November 18, the Bench sought to know what prevailed upon the government that it moved with such superfast speed in one day. “The file has not even travelled 24 hours in the department…Lightning speed…,” it wondered. The Bench – which had asked for the file of Goel’s appointment to see if there was any “hanky panky” in the process — repeatedly asked the Attorney General how four names were recommended from which one person (Goel) was finally chosen.

Maintaining that the issue has to be looked into in entirety, Venkataramani said: “If we start doubting every appointment… look at the implications for the institution’s reputation.”

On the alleged haste in Goel’s appointment, he said usually the process would not last longer than three days. “The speed of appointment also came because of my consultation as AG,” Venkataramani submitted. The Bench – which also included Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice CT Ravikumar – reserved its verdict on petitions seeking a Collegium-like ‘independent’ mechanism to appoint the CEC and ECs. It asked the government and the petitioners to submit six-page written submissions in five days.

Amid repeated interruptions, the Attorney General said it was not a mini trial on this particular appointment and that it was wrong to suggest quid pro quo. “Absolutely,” said the Bench, agreeing with him. At one point, he even told a lawyer, “Please hold your mouth for a while.”

Describing it as “a very difficult process”, Venkataramani said the short-listing was done on the basis of batch, seniority, date of birth, retirement and the tenure the person was likely to have in the EC so that the person appointed got at least six years as Election Commissioner.

During the arguments, senior counsel Gopal Shankaranarayan and advocate Prashant Bhushan urged the court to fill the vacuum and use its powers to prescribe a Collegium-like system to enhance the credibility of the poll panel.

“There is an immense vacuum. No law. If the independence of the EC is crucial for democracy then even a perception shouldn’t arise. The system should seem to be reasonably independent…. Let me draw a parallel with the judiciary. The court found a vacuum and filled it. Now if it is in the EC then that should also be filled,” Shankaranarayan told the Bench. The AG contested, saying such directions can’t be issued unless there is a trigger point.