On the 12th of February, Prashant Bhushan, career activist, lawyer and the person who hosted the first conspiracy meeting in the run-up to Delhi anti-Hindu riots with Sharjeel Imam, Umar Khalid and others in attendance, took to X (formerly Twitter) to inform about the progress of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) PIL against the Modi government.
“ADR’s challenge to the law brought in by Modi govt replacing the CJI by another minister in the selection committee for EC appointment was to be heard today. Due to some problem the SC has directed it to be heard on 19th. The court made it clear that any appointment made of CEC who is retiring on 18th will be subject to the final decision of the SC”, Bhushan tweeted.
Bhushan said that ADR’s petition will be heard on the 19th and any CEC appointed after Rajiv Kumar (current CEC) retires on the 18th, will be subject to the final decision by the SC.
Notably, Prashant Bhushan is closely associated with ADR and has represented in courts in various cases including the Electoral Bond case.
What is the petition by ADR challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023
On 21st December 2023, the Lok Sabha passed the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023, making it an Act. The statute formalised rules governing the appointment, service conditions, and tenure of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and other election commissioners (EC).
On appointment, the law mandates that the President of India would appoint CEC and other ECs based on a selection committee’s recommendation. The selection committee would include the Prime Minister, a union cabinet minister (on the recommendation of the PM), and the Leader of the Opposition or the largest opposition party’s leader in the Lok Sabha.
In the ADR petition, the NGO argues that the provision of the Act, specifically section 7, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
It argues that Article 324(2) of the Constitution says:
The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as t he President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.”
However, it says that the Constituent Assembly debate suggests that the intention was that the Parliament was expected to pass a law but the intention was not to leave the appoint in the hands of the executive.
On the 2nd of March 2023, the Constitution Bench of SC held that leaving the appointment of CEC at the hands of the executive would be detrimental to the health of the democracy. Saying thus, the SC had ordered that the selection of the CEC would be based on a committee comprising of Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India.
While passing this order, the Constitution Bench issued a set of guidelines on page no. 377 of the judgment and clearly mentioned that until the time the parliament makes a law in consonance with Article 324(2) of the Constitution, “We declare that the appointment of the chief election commissioner and the election commissioners shall be made on the recommendations made by a three-member committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition of the Lok Sabha and in case no leader of opposition is available, the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength and the chief justice of India.”
This means that the Constitution Bench itself was passing the order as an interim arrangement until the Parliament passed a law regulating the appointment of CEC.
Thereafter, the law was passed in December 2023.
After the law was passed, Prashant Bhushan approached the court yet again. After, under the new law, the CEC was appointed ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, ADR approached the court to cancel the appointment, claiming that it was a contravention of the order passed by the Supreme Court earlier.
The committee which recommended the CEC incidentally included Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury as the LOP.
When ADR approached the court, the Supreme Court rejected the intervention and upheld the appointment of the CEC by the committee.
Announcing the order, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said, “You cannot say that the Election Commission is under the thumb of the executive. At this stage, we cannot stay the legislation, and it will lead to only chaos and uncertainty.”
The bench was addressing the arguments of Prashant Bhushan, who, while appearing for the petitioners, said, “There was a vacuum, the constituent assembly expected it to be filled by an independent panel, not one dominated by the executive.”
The bench also noted that there were no allegations against the newly appointed Election Commissioners, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, who were picked under the new law by the selection panel.
How was the CEC appointed earlier and how PM Modi made the law more inclusive
While ADR and Prashant Bhushan target the Central Government and PM Modi specifically, the new law brought by the Modi government actually made the process of appointment of CEC far more inclusive.
The truth is before the Modi government passed a law, the law itself had no procedure for appointing members of the Election Commission.
Article 324 of the Constitution vests the “superintendence, direction and control of elections” in an Election Commission. It also says the EC shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may fix from time to time.
This procedure would be governed by any law that the Parliament would pass. However, for 40 years, there was only the provision for a CEC and not other members like ECs. In 1989, it became a multi member body but soo, the law was rescinded in 1990.
A law was enacted in 1991 to fix the conditions of service of the CEC and the ECs, and amended in 1993. Despite the law being passed, there was no provision added for the appointment of CECs and ECs.
In the absence of any law enacted by the Parliament, for 40 years, the Law Ministry would recommend a few names to the Prime Minister who in turn would recommend one name for the EC to the President of India. It had become a convention to appoint officials as ECs first and then, on the completion of the tenure of the CEC, the senior EC was elevated to CEC. It is therefore evident that before the law was passed by the Modi government, which included the Leader of the Opposition, the government of India had the sweeping power to appoint the EC who had an automatic elevation process to become the CEC. The law brought in by PM Modi ensured the participating of not just the Government of India but also the opposition.
Despite the Modi government making the law more inclusive and fair, ADR and Prashant Bhushan have been approaching the court to target the government.
What is ADR and who funds it
ADR is an FCRA NGO that receives foreign funds from some of the most dubious globalist organizations to have ever existed and has repeatedly targeted the Modi government.
ADR receives a huge amount of funds from the Ford Foundation, Google, HIVOS and the Omidyar network for the explicit purpose of electoral and political reform and ‘election watch’. Now, what is the HIVOS? This organization is intricately linked to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and receives funds from various international governments.
HIVOS’ 2018 annual report says, “The key sources of grant income from governments included the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Global Fund, Swedish International Development Aid, the Millennium Challenge Account, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the US Department of State, the Delegation of the European Union in Indonesia, and the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Costa Rica.” Its annual report further says that the key sources of income from non-profit organizations included the Ford Foundation.
At OpIndia, we have extensively documented the manner in which Soros is intimately involved in trying to destabilize democracies abroad. The interference of the Ford Foundation in the internal affairs of a country is well documented. Furthermore, we clearly see that ADR is funded by even foreign governments. It’s not too hard to imagine that it’s perfectly natural for foreign governments to try to undermine Indian sovereignty.
Here are details of who has been funding ADR.
Financial Year 2016-2017
ADR got crores from the Ford Foundation and Omidyar Neyword in 2016-2017. According to their FCRA receipts, they got over Rs 2 crores from Omidyar and over Rs 70 lakh from the Ford Foundation.
Financial Year 2017-18
In the financial year 2017-18, ADR got almost Rs 2 crores from the Ford Foundation.
Financial Year 2018-19
In the financial year 2018-19, ADR got more than Rs 60 lakh from the Ford Foundation.
Financial Year 2020-21
In the financial year 2020-21, ADR got Rs 1,13,60,000 from Omidyar.
In the same year, the organisation also received 14,74,000.00 from the US-based Thakur Family Foundation, run by Dinesh Thakur. The so-called public health activist has been targeting the Indian pharmaceutical sector for years, spreading and amplifying negative news about the industry.
One name that appears regularly in the FCRA donor name is Archesh Shah from Sydney in Australia. This mysterious person donates ₹25,000 regularly to ADR, but there is no detail on him on the internet.
ADR and its links with deep state entities.
Association for Democratic Reforms has links with several deep state entities. As shown above, it received foreign funding from the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network etc. These entities have funded several anti-India campaigns, and continue to do so.
For example, Omidyar-funded Forbidden Stories was the source of the fake Pegasus report against India published by The Wire. FS was launched by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Freedom Voices Network. In the past, the RSF has funded media organisations that produce regime change propaganda against Syria and its president Bashar al-Assad.
Omidyar Foundation also funds several leftist portals in India, like Newslaundry and Scroll.
Thakur Family Foundation, one of the donors of ADR, also funds The Wire, the propaganda portal that has been forced to several fake stories against the BJP and the Modi government after they were exposed. It also backs Caravan, the ultra-left portal. The Foundation further funds several journalists, who have written multiple negative stories on India, particularly on the handling of COVID-19.
