Supreme Court dismisses PIL against appointment of Arun Goel as EC
Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of bureaucrat Arun Goel as election commissioner
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of bureaucrat Arun Goel as election commissioner, saying the constitution bench of the apex court had already dealt with the issue in its verdict dated March 2.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said the five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice (now retired) KM Joseph had perused the file related to Goel’s appointment but refused to quash it even though it made certain observations.
Also Read
The bench refused to entertain the plea filed by NGO Association for Democratic Reforms and dismissed it.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, alleged Goel’s appointment was arbitrary as the due process was not followed.
“We have challenged the appointment of Arun Goel as an election commissioner. The ground for challenge is the March 2 verdict of the apex court where it has said that appointments to the post of chief election commissioner and election commissioners has to be done after the recommendation of a panel comprising the Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition,” he said.
Bhushan said Goel’s appointment was done when the constitution bench was hearing issues with regard to having a collegium like system for the appointment of election commissioners and the chief election commissioner.
The bench told Bhushan every judgement of the court has a prospective effect unless stated expressly, and there was no order on stay of the appointment.
“The appointment was done as per the procedure which was followed earlier. Judgement of this court came later,” it said.
Bhushan claimed Goel was appointed in an “arbitrary” manner and questioned the way the law minister picked four names, including Goel’s, for the post. He also wanted to know how his application for voluntary retirement was accepted the day he submitted it. Bhushan pointed out that a three-month notice is mandatory before the voluntary retirement application of an officer can be accepted.
After Bhushan insisted that the court must peruse the original files regarding Goel’s appointment, the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce the relevant documents.
Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the NGO cannot be allowed to have a “second bite to the cherry” as a constitution bench has already gone through the file but refused to quash his appointment.
“These kinds of busy bodies are coming forward to challenge every constitutional appointment. Had there been anything wrong, the constitution bench could have very well quashed the appointment of Goel but it did not do so. Even then, if the court wants, I am ready to table the files regarding the appointment of Goel,” the government’s law officer said.
The bench then went through the March 2 verdict of the constitution bench and told Bhushan there cannot be a second round of litigation on the issue.
“This court was very well within its power to quash the appointment after making certain observations but it did not do so. Even Justice Joseph had recused from hearing a plea that sought quashing of the appointment. Now, interfering with the appointment would amount to stepping into the shoes of the constitution bench,” Justice Khanna said, adding a second round of litigation on the issue cannot be allowed. Mehta said everyone knows documents for appointment to constitutional posts move in a single day and don’t go table to table like those related to other appointments.
On March 2, in a far-reaching verdict, the Supreme Court had ruled that the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and ECs will be done by the President on the recommendation of a committee comprising the prime minister, leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI to maintain the “purity” of elections.
The constitution bench had said it was mystified as to how Goel applied for voluntary retirement on November 18 last year, the day the approval was sought for appointment of an election commissioner, if he was not aware about the proposal to appoint him as one.
It had questioned the “haste” and “tearing hurry” with which the Centre appointed Goel as an election commissioner, saying his file travelled at “lightning speed” within departments in 24 hours.
The Centre had vehemently resisted the observations, with Attorney General R Venkataramani contending the whole issue pertaining to his appointment needed to be looked at in entirety.
The top court had asked how the Union law minister short-listed a panel of four names that was recommended to the prime minister for appointing an election commissioner when none of them would have completed the stipulated six-year tenure in office.
