The Supreme Court on March 21 rejected applications seeking a stay on the appointment of two new election commissioners, emphasizing that such a move would create "chaos" and "uncertainty" given the proximity to upcoming elections.
Asserting the independence of the Election Commission from executive influence, the apex court declined to grant interim stay on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta announced that the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act will be examined, directing the Centre to submit its response within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for a hearing on August 5.
"We cannot suspend the legislation at this stage. It would cause chaos and uncertainty. There are no allegations against the new election commissioners," remarked the bench to the petitioners contesting the new law, dismissing their applications for stay on the appointments.
Emphasizing the importance of independent and fair election commissioners, the bench noted the historical significance of past election commissioners and highlighted the shift from executive appointments to appointments under the new law.
Addressing concerns over the selection process for the new election commissioners, the bench emphasized that the selection committee should have been provided ample time to thoroughly evaluate candidates.
Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, retired IAS officers, were recently appointed as election commissioners ahead of the upcoming Lok Sabha polls commencing on April 19.
Under the provisions of the new law, the selection panel, chaired by the Prime Minister, includes the Leader of Opposition and a Union minister nominated by the Prime Minister as its other members.
The Supreme Court further clarified that its 2023 verdict did not specify the inclusion of a judicial member in the selection panel for the appointment of election commissioners under the new law. The verdict aimed to encourage Parliament to enact a law in the absence of clear guidelines, signaling the need for legislative action.
