Yogendra Yadav ends his article (‘Junk Mannequin Code of Conduct’, IE, October 29) with “…we desperately want somebody to make sure free and truthful elections”. The reply to that is out there within the Constituent Meeting (CA) debates and lies within the technique of appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). Earlier than we come to the answer, some background will assist.
After discussing the difficulty of appointment of the CEC at nice size, the Constituent Meeting (CA) laid down Article 324 (2) of the Structure saying, “…the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and different Election Commissioners shall, topic to the provisions of any regulation made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.” Parliament didn’t make any regulation on the topic and these appointments have been historically made by the President appearing on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, which successfully means they’ve been appointed by the Govt.
In response to a PIL, the Supreme Courtroom (SC) in a judgment of March 2, 2023, directed that the appointments of the CEC and the ECs “shall be accomplished by the President of India on the idea of the recommendation tendered by a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, the Chief of the Opposition within the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India” and that “this norm will proceed to carry good until a regulation is made by the Parliament.” On December 23, 2023, Parliament made a regulation saying, “The Chief Election Commissioner and different Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the advice of a Choice Committee consisting of (a) the Prime Minister — Chairperson; (b) the Chief of Opposition within the Home of the Individuals — Member; (c) a Union Cupboard Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister — Member.” This regulation, whereas upholding the letter of the SC judgment of March 23, utterly overturned the logic which the SC judgment had described in nice element, with in depth references to CA debates.
Area constraints don’t allow full dialogue of the CA debates however the important thing level is contained in an modification of B R Ambedkar’s proposal by a CA member, Shibban Lal Saxena. A part of what Saxena mentioned is value reproducing: “So what I would like is that this that even the one that is appointed initially must be such that he must be having fun with the arrogance of all events — his appointment must be confirmed not solely by the bulk however by two-thirds majority of each the Homes. If it’s only a naked majority then the social gathering in energy may vote confidence in him however once I desire a two-thirds majority then it implies that the opposite events should additionally concur within the appointment in order that actual independence of the fee could also be assured, so that everybody even in Opposition could not have something to say towards the Fee, the appointments of the Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner have to be by the President however the names proposed by him must be equivalent to command the arrogance of the two-thirds majority of each the Homes of Legislatures.”
Following Saxena’s lead, the next system for appointments of the CEC and ECs is proposed:
An current committee of Parliament or a brand new committee shaped for this goal ought to suggest the {qualifications} and necessities for individuals to be appointed as ECs/CEC.
The proposals of the committee must be put to Parliament, in each Homes, and must be accredited by a two-thirds majority of the members of Parliament current and voting.
As soon as the {qualifications} and necessities have been accredited by Parliament, the identical committee must be entrusted with the duty of trying to find and deciding on people proposed to be appointed as ECs/CEC.
The committee ought to invite nominations/purposes of people thought of or acceptable for and occupied with being appointed as ECs/CEC.
From the nominations and purposes acquired, the committee ought to short-list individuals thought of acceptable.
The committee ought to meet the short-listed individuals in open hearings which must be accessible for viewing by the general public via video-transmission.
After the hearings, the committee ought to choose people to be appointed as ECs/CEC.
4. The committee ought to ship its suggestions to the Parliament for consideration.
5. Suggestions of the committee must be thought of accredited by Parliament provided that accredited by a two-thirds majority of the members of Parliament current and voting.
6. The suggestions accredited by Parliament must be despatched to the President for approval of the appointments.
7. As soon as appointed, such individuals ought to keep of their positions for six years or till the age of 75 years, whichever is earlier. Individuals above the age of 69 shouldn’t be appointed to permit a tenure of six years.
8. The stipulations of merchandise 7 above ought to apply to every appointment independently. Each EC and CEC ought to have a tenure of six years.
The proposed system may be time-consuming and should even be thought of impractical by critics. This might be true given the way in which Parliament features, or doesn’t perform, today. But when India has to maneuver in the direction of a extremely useful and substantive democracy, parliamentarians should be taught to be accountable.
That is the one possibility if the distinctiveness and criticality of the Election Fee for democracy is recognised. The SC judgment says that these positions “stand on a far greater pedestal within the constitutional scheme of issues having regard to the connection between their powers, features and duties and the upholding of the democratic lifestyle of the nation”, and that “Every time… within the phrases of Dr Ambedkar… ‘an individual beneath the thumb of the Govt’, calls the photographs within the matter of holding the elections, which constitutes the very coronary heart of democracy, even formal democracy, which is indispensable for a Physique Polity to reply the outline of the phrase ‘democracy’, just isn’t realised”.
The author is a founder-member of the Affiliation for Democratic Reforms (ADR)
