New Delhi, Jul 31: The Centre on Thursday strongly defended the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), telling the Supreme Court that it would be incorrect to presume that the Prime Minister and other members of the selection committee would act in bad faith merely because they hold a numerical majority in the panel.
The submissions were made during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The legislation provides that the President appoints the CEC and Election Commissioners based on the recommendation of a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma examined the constitutional issues surrounding the law and questioned why the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was excluded from the selection panel after the enactment of the legislation.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the office of the Prime Minister carries constitutional sanctity and should not be viewed with suspicion. He contended that assuming the committee would function with bias would undermine the constitutional trust placed in elected institutions and Parliament’s legislative wisdom.
Mehta argued that if the Prime Minister’s decisions were presumed to be lacking fairness, similar doubts could be raised about other constitutional functions performed by the executive. He maintained that the Constitution entrusts elected representatives with significant responsibilities and such trust should not be lightly questioned.
The Solicitor General also urged the apex court to refer the matter to a larger Constitution Bench under Article 145(3), stating that the petitions involve substantial questions relating to constitutional interpretation.
During the proceedings, Mehta submitted that questioning the composition of the selection committee effectively casts doubt on Parliament’s decision-making authority. Drawing a comparison with judicial appointments, he argued that every constitutional institution operates within its own framework and independence should not automatically require the participation of external members.
Justice Dipankar Datta, however, observed that the issue before the court was not about mistrusting the Prime Minister personally but about ensuring that the appointment mechanism inspires confidence in the fairness and independence of the Election Commission.
The Bench remarked that with two members representing the executive and only one from the Opposition, the committee’s composition raises concerns about the appearance of impartiality. Justice Datta emphasised that while fairness may exist, the process must also visibly demonstrate independence, particularly for an institution entrusted with conducting free and fair elections.
Referring to constitutional principles, the Bench also cited observations made by Dr B.R. Ambedkar regarding democracy and highlighted concerns over the criminal background of several lawmakers and ministers. The judges sought data from the Centre on the number of ministers across states facing criminal cases, indicating that constitutional safeguards should account for evolving political realities.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter, which is expected to have significant implications for the future framework governing appointments to the Election Commission of India.