Satya Prakash
New Delhi, March 21
Noting that it would lead to "chaos and uncertainty" in the midst of the Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to stay the appointment of Election Commissioners Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu under the recently enacted law that excluded the CJI from the Prime Minister-led selection panel.
Respond to pleas in 6 weeks, centre told
The Bench, however, said it would examine the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act. Asking the Centre to respond to the petitions in six weeks, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.
"Now they (two new ECs) have been appointedhellip; elections are round the corner... It's a question of balance of convenience. We have to see what the effect is if we do (stay) it and what are the consequences which will followhellip;. There are no allegations against the persons (ECs) appointed," a Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta said.
"We dismiss the applications for stayhellip; We will give reasons later," said the Bench, which also refused to grant an interim stay on the operation of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Terms of Office) Act, 2023, saying the Election Commission was not under the "thumb of executive".
"At this stage, we cannot stay the legislation or put it under suspension by way of interim order. It would lead to uncertainty and chaos in case of stay," it said, dismissing the pleas for stay filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Association for Democratic Reforms.
The Bench, however, said it would examine the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act. Asking the Centre to respond to the petitions in six weeks, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.
On Thursday, the Bench posed certain questions on the procedure adopted in appointing the new ECs, saying there could have been an opportunity given for the names to be examined.
"This could have easily been avoided by giving two-three days. You should have gone more slowly," it said.
Noting that the search committee could have been activated earlier, the Bench pointed out that there was a disparity in procedure adopted for filling the two vacancies.
"For one vacancy, there are five names. For two, you send only six. Why not 10? This is what appears from the record. They can consider 200 names, but what is the time given? Maybe two hourshellip; 200 names to be considered in two hours? You could have been transparent," it noted.
"We are on procedure... Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We are dealing with the Representation of People Act, which according to me is the highest after the Constitution," Justice Datta told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre.