On Tuesday (18th December), lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing the Soros-funded Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), demanded the urgent hearing of a petition challenging the constitutionality of a law enacted by the Parliament for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
The matter was heard by a 2-Judge Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh. “It is listed tomorrow as item 41, I am requesting that it be taken at top of the Board. It’s exceedingly important for future of our democracy,” Prashant Bhushan argued.
Bhushan: It is listed tomorrow as item 41, I am requesting that it be taken at top of the Board. It's exceedingly important for future of our democracy#SupremeCourt #ElectionCommissioners
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025
He claimed that the Centre was violating the judgment of the Constitution Court in the case by appointing Election Commissioners. “I won’t take more than 15-20 mins,” Prashant Bhushan further demanded.
However, Justice Surya Kant did not appear inclined to entertain Bhushan’s shenanigans. “We will see tomorrow subject to any other important matter,” he stated, refusing to direct Registry to take the matter higher up in order.
J Kant declines to direct Registry regarding taking up of matter high on Board
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025
Bhushan: But it's item 41, it might not be taken up then
J Kant: We never passed this order. We can take it out of turn, there is no issue. Ld. SG is here.#SupremeCourt #ElectionCommissioners
Justice Surya Kant further noted, “Interim application (to stay the law) has been rejected by coordinate bench vide a reasoned order.” He made the observation after another lawyer representing the petitioners claimed that 3 appointments were made under the contested law.
J Kant (to counsels): You make a mention tomorrow, then we can take up. After urgent/fresh matters are over.#SupremeCourt #ElectionCommissioners
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 18, 2025
The court decided to hear the petitioners on Wednesday (19th February) after hearing urgent and fresh matters.
The Background of the Case
In March 2023, the Supreme Court of India resorted to judicial activism and tried to snatch the Central government’s power to appoint members of the Election Commission.
The apex court ruled that a 3-member selection panel, comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition would jointly appoint the Election Commissioner until a law on the same is framed by the Parliament.
The dangerous precedent laid by the Supreme Court was corrected when the Modi government introduced The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Bill, 2023 in the Rajya Sabha.
Both the Houses of Parliament eventually passed the bill and it became a law. The government thus removed the CJI from the selection panel and replaced him with a member of the Cabinet.
The government made it stand clear before the Supreme Court in March 2024.
It said, “The case of the petitioners is premised on one fundamental fallacy that the independence can only be maintained in any authority when the selection committee is of a particular formulation…The high constitutional functionaries ought to be presumed to act fairly and in good faith”…“To indicate, as the petitioners suggest, that selection committees without judicial members would invariably be biased is wholly incorrect”.
The government further added, “Where the Constitution itself specifically vests Parliament with the power to decide upon the appointments of the Election Commissioner, and Parliament exercises this power, no question of Executive overruling (can arise)…The (SC) judgment… had been conscious of the fact that the ultimate decision-making power in this regard lay with Parliament and so it had consciously evolved a time-limited mechanism for appointments to the EC. This mechanism was to last only till the time that Parliament made a law on the subject.”
After hearing the arguments made by the government, the Supreme Court refused to put a stay on the implementation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
Contrary to the past appointments of Election Commissioners, the selection panel for the first time had the Leader of the Opposition. Prashant Bhushan is demanding an urgent hearing of the case.
ADR, source of its funds and ties with Deep State
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.
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.
