Justice KM Joseph Recuses From Hearing Plea Challenging Appointment Of Arun Goel As Election Commissioner

Advocate, Prashant Bhushan appearing for ADR submitted that the appointment of Goel has been assailed in line with the observations made by the Constitution Bench regarding Arun Goel's appointment. While considering that matter, the Constitution Bench had scrutinised the process of appointment of Goel as EC during the pendency of the matter. The Constitution Bench had observed that the process of appointment of Goel as an Election Commissioner ‘throws up certain pertinent questions’. It had taken note of the fact that the appointment of Goel was made with ‘lighting speed’ and the whole process was completed in the span of a day.

During the course of the hearing Justice Nagarathan asked Bhushan, “You are asking for writ of quo warranto. But which rule is violated?”

He responded by submitting that the appointment was done arbitrarily and the whole process was mala fide.

Justice Nagarathna pointed out, “It might have been done in tearing hurry, undue haste as you say...but is that a ground for quo warranto? What is the violation of rule?”

Bhushan submitted that the appointment of Goel is in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution as the whole process was mala fide and there was no basis to cherry-pick only certain names, while omitting other eligible names.

Justice Joseph reckoned, “There was a system prevailing for appointment of Election Commissioners . You can't just rely on our judgment…”

He added -

“What we are concerned with more is the process of appointment under the law as it stood then. Can we think of what he will do in future?”

Justice Nagarathan reiterated her concern that, whether the appointment can be assailed when it was made as per the existing rules. Bhushan argued that Goel's appointment will also violate the principle of "institutional integrity", which was invoked by the Supreme Court to quash the appointment of PJ Thomas as the head of the CVC.

As per the petition, the Union of India, while substantiating Goel's appointment had stated that since he was the youngest of the four persons on the panel prepared, he would have the longest tenure in the ECI. The petition argues that a deficient panel was deliberately created to justify the appointment of Goel on the ground of age. Further, there were 160 officers who belonged to the 1985 batch and some of them were younger than Goel. However, without any explanation as to why the officers who were younger in age than Goel and who would have a full tenure of six years as mandated by Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 were not empaneled, the Government appointed Goel.

[Case Title: ADR v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 436/2023]