Collegium system for top appointments can ensure EC credibility
The transparent and independent functioning of constitutional institutions was the aim of our founding fathers. There have, however, been gaps which have been exploited by political parties reluctant to free the institutions from their control. This has led to the erosion of the credibility of these bodies. The Supreme Court has now questioned the process of appointment of election commissioners. There have been suggestions from former chief election commissioners that a collegium should make the appointments of election commissioners. The idea is to ensure transparency in the process.
The Election Commission is a constitutional body. Even non-constitutional entities have collegiums. The Central Vigilance Commission is a statutory body, and the CBI is merely a government department. But collegiums make top appointments in both. The EC, on the other hand, is a constitutional body. But its top appointments are made directly by the government. It can be nobody’s case that important institutions should not have a transparent appointment method. This is what the Supreme Court appears concerned about.
Not that all collegium appointees have acted in a non-partisan manner. But some filtering out at the entry-level and the involvement of the government and the opposition in the selection process strengthens the organisation’s credibility. The process of strengthening democratic institutions is a work in progress. Indulging in whataboutery to say why talk only about one and not about others is a self-defeating exercise. It is part of India’s political folklore that successive governments have been appointing pliable officers into sensitive organisations to do their bidding. Blocking transparency and autonomy will not strengthen institutions. There is a compelling case for introducing the collegium appointment system with a fixed tenure to top officers in constitutional and statutory bodies. This will go a long way in shielding the officials from undue government influence and making both government and opposition collectively responsible for the officials’ actions, besides increasing the credibility of these entities.
It would serve the national interest to avoid imputing motives and playing blame games and focus on the larger question arising from the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the appointment of elections commissioners. The question is how to continue strengthening and democratising institutions’ functioning and improving their credibility.