May the Election and Commission be free and fair
text_fields
The Supreme Court has issued a historic verdict regarding the appointment of Election Commissioners. A five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ordered that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The court has also directed that if there is no official leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, the leader of the largest single party in the opposition should be included in the committee. Until now, the Chief Election Commissioner and two other commissioners have been appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. This position has been filled by bureaucrats who are close to the government; however, the nation has seen how they have meddled with the election process and remained loyal to the previous administrations. All of these realities have been highlighted by the Supreme Court, which also issued an urgent directive to draft legislation on the matter. The apex court's verdict has been welcomed by democratic groups as it would be helpful in conducting free and fair elections. It is also to be noted that the Sangh Parivar has shown displeasure over the court's decision. Several people have openly voiced their displeasure, including BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
The circumstances that led the Supreme Court to such a verdict is rather unusual. The backdrop of this was the appointment of an IAS officer named Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner. A 1985 cadre officer, Goel was a secretary in the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries. He was scheduled to retire on December 31, 2022; however, just before that he sought voluntary retirement from service (VRS) which was approved on November 18. The very next day, he was appointed as Election Commissioner and assumed office the day after that. This very strange and unheard-of 'appointment drama' was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court by individuals like Prashant Bhushan. Even the court wondered how the recommendation and appointment to such an important post had taken place in a single night. The court then ordered the government to produce the files regarding the appointment. It may be noted that such an appointment took place when a petition demanding an independent committee for the appointment of the commission was pending before the court. Naturally, this angered the court. The Constitution Bench, headed by Justice KM Joseph criticized the government's action in very strong language and also reminded that a person in such a position should be fearless enough to take action even against the Prime Minister. That had hinted at the possible kind of verdict from the court along the lines it issued it.
There is a special section in our constitution that deals with elections. According to Article 324, the Commission is responsible for supervising and guiding elections in the country. Their ultimate goal is to make free and fair elections possible. With the exception of commissioners like T N Seshan, everyone else failed in that regard. In fact, most of them were enjoying their 'service period' as yes men of the executive of the time. This trend gained momentum when the Sangh Parivar administration came into power at the Centre under the leadership of Modi. It was during the last eight years that the Election Commission has faced the most serious allegations. The nation has seen this system operate in a one-sided manner in numerous recent elections. Even Anurag Thakur, who referred to those who protested the Citizenship Act as traitors and urged his supporters to "shoot the traitors," was treated leniently by the Commission during the most recent Delhi assembly elections; Thakur was given just a 72-hour "silence" as punishment. At the same time, during the West Bengal assembly elections, the Commission did not hesitate to stop the Trinamool Congress from campaigning in areas where violence had taken place. This double standard has been questioned many times. It is in such a background that several individuals approached the court and petitioned for a free and fair Election Commission. That has borne fruit now. However, there is no guarantee that this judgment will not be overturned. In essence, the court has mandated the formulation of legislation that will aid in the flawless appointment of the commission. In the meantime, the above-mentioned committee can provide the recommendation to the President. Even as this court verdict is to be welcomed, the question remains what will be there to celebrate in the present circumstance, given that in the current cenario, new laws can be created according to the wishes of the Central Government.
