‘Wish judges were appointed as quickly as Election Commissioners,’ says SC

The Supreme Court, while being taken through the timeline of the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Sandhu, reacted to the swift pace of the procedure, stating that it only wished that judges were appointed at such speed.

Challenge to appointment law

The development took place during the hearing of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023.

Also Read: SC rejects Centre’s plea to delay hearing on Election Commissioners' appointment law

As per the law, the Election Commissioners will be appointed by a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The hearing was being conducted by a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Wednesday (May 6).

Questions over selection process

During the hearing, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the appointment of the Election Commissioners was carried out swiftly without any consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. He further stated that an application was filed to restrain the appointment of Election Commissioners as per the new law in 2024.

Also Read: SC slams misuse of PILs, calls them ‘Private, Publicity, Paisa, Political Interest Litigations’

Alleging that the Centre, pre-empting the hearing of the current appeal before the Supreme Court, hastily completed the process of appointment of the Election Commissioners, Hansaria said that on March 13, 2024, the Leader of the Opposition was given the list of 200 shortlisted candidates and the following day, a meeting of the selection committee was held, and the names of Kumar and Sandhu were finalised.

"This is what happens when you give absolute power to one individual. How can the LoP be expected to look into so many names in one day?" stated Hansaria as quoted by Live Law.

Bench seeks proof of motive

It was at this point that Justice Dutta said, "We can only say that we wish such speed were shown in the appointment of judges. Especially High Court judges.”

However, the bench was not convinced by the argument that the Centre made the appointments hastily to derail the hearing of the stay application.

Also Read: SC finds no cognisable offence in hate speech case against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma

"Can you attribute any motive without showing us that the union knew about 15th being the date? When you want us to declare that something was activated by motive, you need to satisfy us that the union also knew that 15th is the date and that hence, it (selection) was brought forward to 14th," said Justice Datta.

Hansaria admitted that he had no material to establish such knowledge on the part of the Centre. "Let's leave it at that,” said Justice Dutta.