Supreme Court?s Verdict on ECI Appointments

Supreme Court’s Verdict on ECI Appointments
 

News: A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a high-power committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India must pick the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
 

Background:
 In 2015, a public interest litigation was filed by Anoop Baranwal challenging the constitutional validity of the practice of the Centre appointing members of the Election Commission.
 

What was the challenge?
 Article 324(2) reads: “The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the 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.”
 Crux of challenge – Since no law has been made by Parliament on this, the Court must step in to fill the “Constitutional Vaccum.”
 Two corollary issues that were also examined by the Court are whether the process of removal of the two Election Commissioners must be the same as the CEC; and regarding the funding of the EC.

What did the court decide?
 The appointment of the CEC and the EC’s shall be made by the President on the advice of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the 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 SC also ensured that this will be subject to any law to be made by Parliament. This means that Parliament can undo the effect of the SC verdict by bringing in a new law on the issue.
 

What were the basis of Court’s verdict?
 They were based on a reading of the debates of the Constituent Assembly.
 The deliberate addition of the words “subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament” after prolonged discussions, according to the court, indicate that “what the Founding Fathers clearly contemplated and intended was, that Parliament would step in and provide norms, which would govern the appointment to such a uniquely important post as the post of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners.”
 The courts observed that founding fathers did not intend the executive exclusively calling the shots in the matter of appointments to the EC.
 The ruling cites past instances of the Court stepping into to fill a gap in the law, including the Vishaka guidelines to curb sexual harassment at workplace, and the interpretation on the process of appointment of judges.
 

What are other findings of the court?
 On the issue of whether the process of removal of Election Commissioners must be the same as it is for the CEC, the Court ruled that it cannot be the same.
 On the issue of funding the EC, the court left it to government but stated the need for establishing a permanent secretariat for EC and also to provide that expenditures be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.