NEW DELHI: Lok Prahari, one of the petitioners in the batch of pleas challenging the CEC and EC Act, 2023, argued before the SC that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Other Election Commissioners (EC) Act, 2023, amounted to a 'fraud on the Constitution',
The pleas contended that the Act enabled executive dominance over appointments to the Election Commission.
Appearing in person, S N Shukla, the former IAS officer and General Secretary of Lok Prahari, told the apex court that the law violated Articles 14 and 324 by failing to ensure an independent, impartial and transparent appointment process.
"The selection committee, as presently constituted, had an inherent incapacity to make objective selections. The records show serious procedural and constitutional defects in how the law was enacted and implemented," Shukla submitted to the top court.
He requested either to strike down the provisions or read them down by introducing a judicial safeguard, by appointing the Chief Justice of India.
The SC was hearing PILs (Public Interest Litigations) challenging the EC law on appointment of CEC and ECs by a panel which does not include the CJI (Chief Justice of India).
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Act and contended that the law was passed without substantial debate in Parliament, and highlighted that at that point in time, 141 opposition MPs were under suspension.
The arguments were inconclusive on Thursday and would continue on another day. Shukla further said he had challenged Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act, and contended that despite Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s warning in the Constituent Assembly that Election Commissioners should not be under the 'thumb of the Executive', the 2023 law failed to address the concern precisely.
"Fixed tenure alone was meaningless if there were no constitutional safeguards against executive influence. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act violated Articles 14 and 324 because they gave the executive a free hand over appointments," he further stated.
On the other hand, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani, for the Centre, defended the constitutional validity of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the CEC and EC Act.
"The potential abuse or speculative apprehensions regarding future conduct of Election Commissioners could not by themselves render the legislation unconstitutional. There existed no identifiable wrong, a trigger point, to warrant any judicial interference,” he said and sought a direction from the apex court that the batch of pleas should be dismissed.
He further said that Parliament could not be compelled to legislate strictly in terms of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, 2023, case.
