The Modi administration is scheduled to table a bill that would establish how the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners would be appointed. Arjun Ram Meghwal, the union law minister, would present the “Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023” in the Rajya Sabha on 10 August.
According to the proposed legislation, the officials shall be selected by the president of India on the recommendation of a committee which is set to be comprised of the prime minister as chairman, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a union cabinet minister that the prime minister would nominate.
However, the opposition and its allies in the media have once again engaged in disseminating false information in connection to the ordinance. Rajya Sabha MP from Rajasthan and general secretary of the Congress party K C Venugopal claimed, “Blatant attempt at making the Election Commission a total puppet in the hands of the PM.” He termed the bill as “unconstitutional, arbitrary and unfair” and pledged to “oppose this on every forum.”
Blatant attempt at making the Election Commission a total puppet in the hands of the PM.
— K C Venugopal (@kcvenugopalmp) August 10, 2023
What about the Supreme Court’s existing ruling which requires an impartial panel?
Why does the PM feel the need to appoint a biased Election Commissioner?
This is an unconstitutional,… https://t.co/injuEBXdQx
Trinamool Congress member and Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhle who is infamous for swindling money in the name of donations also expressed his objection to the legislation and charged, “BJP is rigging the 2024 elections openly. Modi Govt has again brazenly trampled upon an SC judgment & is making the Election Commission its own bunch of stooges.”
Shocking:
— Saket Gokhale (@SaketGokhale) August 10, 2023
BJP is RIGGING the 2024 elections openly.
Modi Govt has again brazenly trampled upon an SC judgment & is making the Election Commission its own bunch of stooges.
In a Bill being tabled in Rajya Sabha today, the Chief Justice of India has been replaced by a Union…
Journalist Arvind Gunesakar commented, “Centre moves to dilute another Constitution bench judgment of SC, Bill on the appointment of CEC and ECs states that Selection Committee will comprise of PM, LoP in Lok Sabha and a Cabinet Minister.” He also attached a screenshot of the incomplete order in an effort to peddle his agenda.
Centre moves to dilute another Constitution bench judgment of SC, Bill on appointment of CEC and ECs states that that Selection Committee will comprise of PM, LoP in Lok Sabha and a Cabinet Minister.
— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) August 10, 2023
SC in March 2023 had said appointment of CEC and ECs shall be done by the… pic.twitter.com/foPyjP4n3D
Another journalist named Mirza Asif Beg mocked the move saying, “This will make the Election Commission of India, already an epitome of independence, the most independent institution in the world dedicated to protecting democracy. I think this deserves an accolade from the UN.”
This will make the Election Commission of India, already an epitome of independence, the most independent institution in the world dedicated to protecting democracy. I think this deserves an accolade from the UN. https://t.co/JZ68SEc3LV
— Mirza Arif Beg (@Iammirzaarif) August 10, 2023
Journalist Sheela Bhatt accused the government of creating controversies. She wrote, “Even though Supreme Court had itself suggested that the current arrangement will continue till the relevant law to appoint CEC and EC is formulated but when Parliament is having a debate on the No Confidence Motion Gov opens Pandora’s box.”
The Modi Government is having infinite energy to create controversies.
— Sheela Bhatt शीला भट्ट (@sheela2010) August 10, 2023
Here is one more.
Even though Supreme Court had itself suggested that the current arrangement will continue till the relevant law to appointCEC and EC is formulated but when Parliament is having debate on No… https://t.co/9j8CCuUb0h
Media houses like NDTV weren’t far behind from proclaiming, “The fresh Bill sets up another confrontation between the Supreme Court and the Centre,” in its report titled “Centre’s Bill Drops Chief Justice From Poll Officers’ Selection Process” while completely ignoring the fact that there is no contradiction in the supreme court’s order and the ordinance. It also invoked former points of contention between the two to assert the point.
What did the Supreme Court actually say
Notably, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled in March of this year that until the parliament passes legislation to outline the selection procedure, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the chief justice of India shall serve on the panel that chooses the chief election commissioner as well as other election commissioners.
It 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.”
The directive to ensure the independence of the election commissioners was passed by the bench headed by Justice KM Joseph. It further stated that in accordance with Article 324(2) of the constitution, no parliamentary law existed that prescribed the process to elect election commissioners as it passed the order. Hence, it was clearly mentioned that the order, which included the CJI in the selection committee, was valid only till the parliament brings a law in this regard.
Interestingly, it appeared that neither the opposition nor its supporters read the entire measure, or they very conveniently disregarded the portion where the highest court established “until the parliament passes legislation” in the matter.
