Editorial: Landmark ruling

By giving opposition and judiciary a say in the selection of CEC and EC, the apex court has added sanctity to the process

Hyderabad: The hard-earned credibility of the Election Commission as an impartial and independent institution has come under serious threat in recent times. There is a growing perception that the poll panel, a constitutional body that has built for itself an enviable reputation for impartiality, fairness and professionalism over years, has become a pliable tool in the hands of the ruling dispensation. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) must be picked by a high-power committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India is a landmark development with far-reaching implications. At present, the central government has a free hand in appointing these officials. The Constitution does not lay down any specific legislative process for the appointment of the CEC and ECs. The President makes the appointment on the advice of the union Council of Ministers. By giving the opposition and Judiciary a say in the selection, the apex court has added sanctity to the process. As per Article 324 of the Constitution, the appointment of the CEC and ECs, though to be made by the President, should be done based on a law to be promulgated. Yet, no law has been enacted by Parliament so far in this regard. Taking advantage of this scenario, the dispensation at the Centre chooses the ECs who are often seen to act in tune with those in power.

Though some view the SC verdict as a sign of judicial overreach encroaching upon the turf of the Executive, it must, instead, be seen as an attempt to plug a gap created by the silence of the Constitution on the mechanism to pick the top election officials, and an absence of rules and a framework governing the process. Preserving the independence of the constitutional bodies is paramount for the success of democracy. The opaque style of functioning of the EC, particularly related to its decisions on the allegations of poll code violations by leaders of various parties, is a matter of concern. As a referee in this largest democratic exercise in the world, the EC has a great responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner. It needs to clear the air on the allegations that it has been treating the leaders of the ruling party with kid gloves while coming hard on opposition leaders in implementing the model code of conduct. At a time when the poll panel is coming under increasing criticism from opposition parties for the alleged partisan actions, the apex court’s ruling must pave the way for a new era of transparency. The present system of appointment of EC members does not evoke confidence among the people.