BREAKING: Supreme Court calls for committee including PM, Chief Justice of India, Leader of Opposition to appoint Election Commissioners

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the appointment of members of the Election Commission of India (ECI) should be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition (or the leader of single largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha [Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India and ors]..A Constitution Bench of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar said that this would be the setup until the Central government comes up with a law on appointments. It said,"We declare that as far as appointment to the posts of Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners are concerned, the same shall be done by the President of India on the basis of the advice tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and, in case, there is no such Leader, the Leader of the largest Party in the Opposition in the Lok Sabha having the largest numerical strength, and the Chief Justice of India. This norm will continue to hold good till a law is made by the Parliament." It asked the Central government to consider establishing a permanent secretariat for the ECI and also that its expenditure is charged to the Consolidated Fund of India, so that the poll body can be truly independent. .Watch the operative part of the Judgment here:.The Court rendered its decision on a batch of pleas challenging the current system of appointing members of the ECI on the ground that the executive enjoys the power to make appointments in violation of Article 324(2) of the Constitution of India.The said provision states:"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.".In the judgment pronounced by Justice Jospeh, the Court noted that there is huge surge in the role of money power and criminalisation of politics, and that a large section of the media has abdicated its role and become partisan. .On independence of the ECI, it stated,"An Election Commission which does not ensure free and fair poll as per the rules of the game, guarantees the breakdown of the foundation of the rule of law. In the wide spectrum of powers, if the Election Commission exercises them unfairly or illegally as much as he refuses to exercise power when such exercise becomes a duty it has a telling and chilling effect on the fortunes of the political parties."It was emphasised that the ECI has to be independent and act as per the Constitutional framework. "Riding on the horse of independence, it cannot act in an unfair manner either. Independence must be related, finally, to the question of ‘what is right and what is wrong. A person, who is weak kneed before the powers that be, cannot be appointed as an Election Commissioner. A person, who is in a state of obligation or feels indebted to the one who appointed him, fails the nation and can have no place in the conduct of elections, forming the very foundation of the democracy. An independent person cannot be biased.".It also pointed out that several decades had passed, and political parties had not introduced a separate law to govern appointments to the ECI."Article 324 has a unique background. Several decades have passed by. Political parties of varying hues have not introduced a law. A law cannot be perpetuation of what is existing, of the executive having the absolute say in appointments. There is a lacuna as the petitioners have pointed out. Political parties would have a reason to not seek a law, which is clear to see. A party in power will have an insatiable quest to remain in power through a servile Commission.".Justice Rastogi added that the removal of Chief Election Commissioner should be in a like manner and in like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. Further, removal of election commissioners would be made only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner. He further opined that it was desirable that grounds of removal of other election commissioners shall be same as the Chief. "It is desirable that the grounds of removal of the Election Commissioners shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner that is on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court subject to the “recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner” as provided under the second proviso to Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India. The conditions of service of the Election Commissioners shall not be varied to his disadvantage after appointment.".During the course of the hearing, the Bench had asked Attorney General (AG) for India R Venkataramani if the existing practice of appointing bureaucrats on the verge of retirement, was rational.It had also observed that political parties in power at the Centre force Chief Election Commissioners (CEC) to do their bidding so as to remain in power, thereby, compromising the independence of the Election Commission.The Court had suggested the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the committee appointing the CEC. Justice Joseph had said that Article 326 of the Constitution gives citizens the right to vote, and it cannot be overruled by the ancillary law-making powers of Parliament.Pertinently, the Bench had even questioned the Central government as to what the tearing hurry was to appoint Arun Goel as an Election Commissioner a few months ago, and how the names were even shortlisted before his selection.Justice Joseph had pointed out to the existing legal provisions provide for separate terms for Election Commissioners (ECs) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and not a total or maximum of six years, as has been the practice recently.In this context, the Court had asked under what law was the practice of choosing CECs by virtue of ECs being promoted being followed..The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict in the matter on November 24 last year..Watch the full hearing of the Judgment below:.Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anup G Choudary with advocates Prashant Bhushan and Virender K Sharma appeared for the petitioners.Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appeared for the intervenors.Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh appeared for the respondents..[Read judgment]