Editorial: New challenges for the new Chief Election Commissioner
Editorial: Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has also registered his objection to the current procedure through a 'dissenting note'.
Editorial: New challenges for the new Chief Election Commissioner: The controversy that has arisen over the appointments of the Chairman and one member of the Election Commission of India should have been avoided. Gyanesh Kumar took over as the Chief Election Commissioner and Vivek Joshi as the Election Commissioner on Wednesday. Both are former IAS officers. The difference between the two is that Gyanesh Kumar was appointed to the Election Commission after retirement, while Vivek Joshi was still in service and resigned from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) after receiving information about the new appointment on Monday. At that time, he was the Chief Secretary of the Haryana Government. Before Gyanesh Kumar, Rajiv Kumar was the Chief Election Commissioner.
He resigned on Tuesday. Eight hours before his retirement, the government notified the new appointments in the Commission. It is worth mentioning that Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were appointed as Election Commissioners by the President on the same day under the new Election Commission Appointments Act, 2023. Gyanesh Kumar was senior in terms of order and age in the appointment orders, which is why his seniority was recognized while being appointed as the Chief Election Commissioner. At that time, Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge had strongly objected to the procedure adopted for both the appointments.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has also registered his objection to the current procedure through a ‘dissenting note’. Rahul Gandhi argues that when the constitutional validity of the new act is under challenge in the Supreme Court, the Modi government should have taken a decision on the Chief Election Commissioner only after seeing the apex court’s stand. He had given the same argument in a speech in the Lok Sabha this month. At that time, he had said that since the three-member legislative committee that appoints the Election Commissioners includes two ministers including the Prime Minister, the opinion of the third member, the Leader of the Opposition, is irrelevant.
He had also said that he considered attending such meetings as a ‘waste of time’. Contrary to such a declaration, the responsibility he showed by attending the meeting called by the Prime Minister two days ago and registering his disagreement should be welcomed. A year and a half ago, the Supreme Court had ruled on a petition filed to ensure the impartiality of the Election Commission that the government should legislate a clear procedure instead of following the previous traditions regarding the appointments of Election Commissioners.
A three-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had suggested setting up a selection committee in this regard on the model of the statutory committee for the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and had proposed that further appointments be made through a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India until a law is made in this regard. Since the Supreme Court, through that order, did not make the provision of the Chief Justice of India's participation in the Election Committee mandatory, taking advantage of this, the government made a new law by adding a provision for another Union Minister in place of the Chief Justice in the proposed committee. Petitions challenging the validity and legitimacy of this law are now under hearing in the Supreme Court.
Only time will tell what the Supreme Court's stance will be on the new appointments. But one thing is clear that such appointments are eroding the impartiality and independent existence of the Election Commission in the eyes of the common countrymen. Daily slander and accusations against a constitutional institution are not in the interest of national democracy. The Election Commission is constantly facing this trend. For the health of its contribution to the democratic system, it is necessary that the Commission's own functioning should be so clean that even those who raise doubts are ashamed. Gyanesh Kumar's tenure as the Chief Election Commissioner is quite long.
Elections to about 20 assembly constituencies are to be held during this tenure. These elections can also become an opportunity to silence the critics and detractors of the Commission and also a means of strengthening the hands of these critics and detractors. The path the Commission has to take will depend on the performance of Gyanesh Kumar and his two colleagues.