EC appointment plea: More leeway for Centre?

The Supreme Court has scheduled February 19 to hear petitions challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners under the 2023 law. This development comes at a crucial time as current CEC Rajiv Kumar is set to retire on February 18. The postponement has raised concerns over whether the government has been given free rein to appoint the new CEC before the court's ruling.

On The Federal's daily programme Capital Beat, Jagdeep S Chhokar, founding member of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), shared his insights on the matter, calling the delay concerning. He also weighed in on the Supreme Court's directive to the Election Commission regarding EVM data retention and verification costs.

A long rope for the government?

Chhokar pointed out that this is not the first time an Election Commissioner has been appointed while a case was still under judicial review. He recalled a previous instance when an appointment was made at "lightning speed" while hearings were ongoing.

"There is absolutely no guarantee that the government will not go ahead with the appointment before the February 19 hearing," Chhokar stated.

When asked whether the Supreme Court could have passed an interim order to prevent the government from making an appointment, he responded that while such an order was judicially appropriate, it was not issued.

Also Read: Is the game up for INDIA Bloc?

"The court in its mind is trying to uphold the sanctity of Parliament, but it appears to be giving a long rope to the government," he observed.

A veiled warning or a missed opportunity?

The Supreme Court, while scheduling the case for February 19, stated that "if anything happens in the interregnum, the consequences are bound to follow." This remark led to speculation that it was a veiled warning to the government.

However, Chhokar dismissed this interpretation, stating that if the court wanted to prevent the government from making an appointment, it should have issued a clear directive rather than leaving room for interpretation.

"The courts are careful with their wording. If they meant 'do not appoint before the hearing,' they should have explicitly said so," he argued.

Election Commission under scrutiny

Apart from the CEC appointment, the Supreme Court has also directed the Election Commission not to delete EVM data and reduce the cost of verification. These directives came after concerns that poll data was being erased before proper scrutiny.

Chhokar slammed the Election Commission’s handling of EVM verification, stating that it misinterpreted or misrepresented Supreme Court instructions.

Also Read: Justice Chandrachud | In crucial matters, he belied our hopes

"The Supreme Court wanted a verification of the burnt memory and microcontroller of EVMs and VVPATs. Instead, the Election Commission interpreted this as a mock poll," he said.

Asked whether this was an error or deliberate mischief, Chhokar refrained from making a direct accusation but pointed out that the Election Commission’s lack of transparency has been a recurring issue.

"They maintain a majestic silence instead of clarifying issues, which raises more doubts," he added.

EVM data deletion: A serious lapse?

The issue of EVM data deletion was also discussed. According to reports, during the Haryana and Maharashtra elections, some candidates had requested EVM verification. Instead of following proper procedures, the Election Commission allegedly erased the stored vote data and then conducted a mock poll with fake candidates.

"The fact that votes cast in the EVM were deleted before verification is beyond doubt," Chhokar emphasized.

He criticized the Supreme Court for not taking a harsher stance against the Election Commission’s actions, stating that the matter should have been handled with greater urgency.

"The court should have taken a more serious view of this and chastised the Election Commission rather than just saying, ‘Don’t delete the votes,’" he said.

EVM verification cost: Excessive charges under fire

Another major issue raised was the exorbitant cost of EVM verification, which currently stands at ₹47,000 per machine. The Supreme Court has now directed the Election Commission to lower this cost.

Chhokar dismissed the current fee as an arbitrary figure, suggesting that it was designed to deter candidates from requesting verification.

"The Election Commission will now have to justify this cost or revise it downward, but I doubt it will make any real effort to facilitate the verification process," he said.

Will the government appoint the next CEC before Feb 19?

As the discussion wrapped up, Chhokar reiterated his concern that there is no guarantee that the government will wait for the Supreme Court’s verdict before appointing the next CEC.

"If the government does make an appointment, ADR will challenge it in court again," he confirmed.

While the Supreme Court's statement about "consequences" in case of premature action has been interpreted as a warning, Chhokar remained skeptical.

"It is not a threat, just a statement. Whether the government takes it seriously or not remains to be seen," he concluded.

The postponement of the CEC appointment case raises serious questions about the urgency with which the judiciary is handling this crucial matter. While the Supreme Court insists that due process must be followed, the absence of an interim order allows room for the government to proceed with an appointment.

As legal experts and democracy advocates watch closely, the real test will be whether the government respects the court’s position or moves ahead, prompting yet another legal challenge.

The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.