The Supreme Court Dismissed The Petition Seeking A Stay On The Selection Of Two New Election Commissioners.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking a stay on the selection of two new Election Commissioners (ECs). The petition had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023., while dismissing the petitioner seeking a stay on the selection of the new commissioners declined to declare the law unconstitutional at this stage, but emphasized the importance of the EC's independence and the sanctity of the selection process. The apex court reminded constitutional post holders of their duty to act in accordance with the Constitution and dismissed applications for intervention and stay.

The Court observed that “EC being a constitutional post, it is wise to remind ourselves that once a constitutional post holder is selected, they are duty bound to act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The assumption is that they shall adhere to constitutional role and propriety in their functioning.

To borrow from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman, Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India:

- However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good.-”

Background of the Case

The writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court challenged the appointment of two new ECs, Mr. Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, on the grounds that the selection process violated the judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). The petitioners argued that the 2023 Act diluted the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection committee.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court rejected the stay application, stating that it was hesitant to interfere in matters involving the constitutionality of legislation without a clear case of unconstitutionality or violation of fundamental rights. The Court observed that the 2023 Act had been enacted by the Parliament and that the petitioners had not proven that it was manifestly unconstitutional.
Concerns about Selection Process

While dismissing the stay application, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the procedure adopted for the selection of the two ECs. The Court noted that full details and particulars of the candidates should have been circulated to all members of the Selection Committee, and that the procedural sanctity of the process should have been maintained.

Balance of Convenience

The Supreme Court also considered the balance of convenience and the upcoming 18th General Election for the Lok Sabha. The Court ruled that granting a stay would lead to uncertainty, confusion, and potential disruption of the election process.

Constitutional Mandate

The Court emphasized that the EC is a constitutional post, and that once selected, the ECs are duty-bound to act in accordance with the Constitution. The Court reminded that a well-functioning Constitution requires individuals who will uphold constitutional values.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling has upheld the selection of the two new ECs and has maintained the continuity of the Election Commission. The Court's observations about the selection process are intended to ensure transparency and fairness in future appointments.

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/146/14620242150151762Judgement22-Mar-2024.pdf