The Supreme Court on August 4 dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as Election Commissioner.
A Bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna declined to issue notice in the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) while observing that a Constitution Bench of the court had considered the issue of Mr. Goel’s appointment and had eventually decided not to quash it.
In March, a Constitution Bench had laid down that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President on the advice tendered by a committee of Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the single largest party in Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. The five-judge Bench had observed that what the Election Commission of India required were “honest, independent” Commissioners who could distinguish right from wrong, those who could “ordinarily and unrelentingly take on the high and mighty and persevere in the righteous path”.
Justice Khanna noted that the March judgment was prospective in nature, and may not be applicable in the case of Mr. Goel, whose appointment was already done by the date of the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench verdict.
Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza, for ADR, on Friday argued that the entire process of selection of Election Commissioner, which culminated in the appointment of Mr. Goel, was completed in a day between November 18 and November 19 last year.
The vacancy was filled “just one day after the Constitution Bench started hearing the matter”. Mr. Bhushan said the appointment was “arbitrary and violative of institutional integrity and independence of Election Commission Of India”.
It had violated Article 14 and Article 324(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 4 of Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
Mr. Goel was due to retire on December 31, 2022. Thought the government had claimed Mr. Goel was the youngest of the four persons shortlisted in the panel, the petitioner alleged that there were 160 officers who belonged to the 1985 batch and some of them are younger than him.
“There is no explanation as to why the officers who were younger in age than Sh. Arun Goel and who would have a full tenure of six years as mandated by Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 were not empanelled,” the petition had said.
It had noted that Mr. Goel showed “extraordinarily remarkable foresight” by voluntarily retiring at the very inception of the selection process on November 18. Mr. Bhushan said Mr. Goel’s conduct raised the question “whether the entire ‘selection procedure’ was a foregone conclusion”.
Mr. Bhushan referred to how the Constitution Bench too had been “mystified” of how “the officer had applied for voluntary retirement on November 18, if he was not in the know about the proposal to appoint him”.
The petition said Mr. Goel does not have the complete tenure of six years mandated by Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
Mr. Bhushan argued that the arbitrariness of the selection procedure had left Mr. Goel “indebted to the Union of India for their acts of favouritism and cannot discharge his functions as Election Commissioner in a fair and neutral manner. In such circumstances, his appointment affects the independence and institutional integrity of the Election Commission of India”.
