What was mechanism to pick Election Commissioner Arun Goel, produce appointment file: Supreme Court to govt

New Delhi, November 23

The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to produce before it on Thursday the file related to the appointment of retired IAS officer Arun Goel as an Election Commissioner a day after he took voluntary retirement.

• Editorial: Poll officers’ appointments

“What is the mechanism by which this officer was picked? Can it be done when the matter was being considered by this court?” a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice KM Joseph asked Attorney General R Venkataramani.

Why fear if nothing illegal

It takes three months to get voluntary retirement… You need to produce the file. If there is no illegality, then you should not be afraid. Bench

A 1985-batch Punjab-cadre IAS officer, Goel was due to retire on December 31, 2022. He, however, took voluntary retirement on November 18 and was appointed Election Commissioner a day after. He took charge on November 21.

The Bench – which also included Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice CT Ravikumar – sought to know if there was any “hanky-panky” in Goel’s appointment after advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, raised the issue to highlight the manner in which appointments to the Election Commission were made.

“I take serious objection to this and have my reservations to the court seeing the file amidst the hearing of a Constitution Bench,” Venkataramani pointed out, saying there was no order against making the appointment.

“But an application was there… We are not sitting on judgment over the appointment… If everything is hunky-dory… everything is going on smoothly, as you claim, you have nothing to fear…” Justice Joseph told the Attorney General. As Venkataramani said “we are in the framework of a larger question”, Justice Joseph said the issue of the new appointment was interlinked.

The Bench – which on Tuesday questioned the Centre on the absence of a law to govern the appointment of the CEC and ECs and said the “silence of the Constitution” was being exploited by successive governments – will hear the matter on Thursday.

While hearing petitions seeking a Collegium-like system for the appointment of the CEC and ECs referred to it in 2018, the Bench overruled the Attorney General’s objections and made it clear that it would like to peruse the file of Goel’s appointment.

During the hearing, the Bench suggested that the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in the consultative process for these appointments would ensure independence of the Commission. Any ruling party at the Centre “likes to perpetuate itself in power” and can appoint a “yes-man” to the post under the current system, it said.

Defending the current system of appointments, the Attorney General described the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, as a watershed moment that ensured independence in salary and tenure of the CEC and ECs.

Asserting that there was no “trigger point” warranting judicial interference in appointments to the poll panel, he contended that there had been no complaints, except some isolated instances, about the independence of the EC and its work had been appreciated internationally.

As the Bench insisted on the file of Goel’s appointment being produced before it on Thursday, Venkataramani wondered if it was trying to suggest any underlying malice about the accountability of the Council of Ministers.

“No, we just want to know for our satisfaction. Let’s know the mechanism you adopted,” the Bench responded.

Involve CJI in selection process

• Constitution Bench suggests inclusion of CJI in consultative process for ECs’ appointments; says doing so will ensure independence of EC
• Any ruling party at Centre can appoint ‘yes-man’ under current system, it says