Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment Of Arun Goel As Election Commissioner

Sheryl Sebastian

4 Aug 2023 5:19 PM IST

Share this

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment Of Arun Goel As Election Commissioner

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as a member of the Election Commission of India. The division bench Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that the Constitution Bench judgment that had recently directed reforms in the process of appointment of...

The division bench Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that the Constitution Bench judgment that had recently directed reforms in the process of appointment of Election Commissioners, did not pass any orders against Goel's appointment though the files related to his appointment were perused. The two judge bench said that it would not be appropriate on its part to entertain the matter, when the matter has already been considered by the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.

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, while the hearing was going on.

Bhushan submitted that on 17th November, 2022, the Constitution Bench commenced hearing the matter and Goel's appointment was made on 18th November. On the 18th November, the Law Minister made a panel of 4 names including Arun Goel. On the same date, Goel applied for voluntary retirement. He was given an exemption and the notice period of 3 months was waived by the Government. On the same day, the Prime Minister made the appointment, before the matter was even heard by the Court, Bhushan argued. The justification that was given for selecting him was that among the 4 people, he would have the longest tenure, but there were people who were senior to him, Bhushan argued in Court today. There is no explanation to why these 4 people were chosen, out of over 500 people who were eligible, he stated.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that in every constitutional appointment, the file moves in a day. 'This has been the consistent practice' he argued.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna remarked that all the facts were known to Constitution Bench and they had made observations on the same. 'Will it be appropriate now for this bench to examine it?.' Justice Khanna asked the petitioner. 'After having made all the observations, they could've easily struck down his appointment.' he said.

To this, Advocate Prashant Bhushan responded that Goel was not a party to the said proceeding and the bench was only considering the legal issue.

'As far the judgement is concerned it will be prospective, it cannot be retrospective'. Justice Khanna said while refusing to entertain the PIL.

In April 2023, Justice KM Joseph, who has since retired, had recused from hearing plea as the petitioner had placed reliance on the observations made in the judgment authored by Justice KM Joseph for the Constitution Bench whereby it was directed that a collegium comprising PM, CJI and Leader of Opposition should select the Election Commissioners.

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: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 436/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Appointment Of Arun Goel As Election Commissioner

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags