NewKerala.com

CJI Recuses from Hearing Petitions Against New Election Commissioners Law

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners. The law excludes the CJI from the selection committee, a change from a previous Supreme Court order. The case will now be heard by a different bench on April 7. Petitioners argue that removing the CJI undermines the independence and transparency of the appointment process.

Key Points: CJI Recuses from Hearing Petitions on Election Commissioner Law

  • CJI recuses to avoid bias
  • Petitions challenge 2023 law
  • Law excludes CJI from panel
  • New bench to hear case April 7
  • Concerns over appointment transparency
2 min read

CJI-led Bench not to hear pleas challenging law on appointment of CEC, ECs

CJI Surya Kant recuses himself from hearing pleas challenging the 2023 law that excludes the CJI from appointing Election Commissioners.

"It will be better if this matter is placed before another Bench. If I hear the case, somebody may raise an allegation of bias. - Chief Justice Surya Kant"

New Delhi, March 20

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday recused himself from hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which excludes the CJI from the process of appointment of top officials of the Election Commission.

At the outset, CJI Kant observed that since the issue concerns the role of the Chief Justice of India, it would be appropriate for him not to hear the matter to avoid any apprehension of bias.

"It will be better if this matter is placed before another Bench. If I hear the case, somebody may raise an allegation of bias," the CJI said.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, suggested that the matter be assigned to a Bench that does not include any prospective Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Taking note of the submission, CJI Kant said that the case would be assigned to a Bench where the judge is not a prospective CJI, so that "nobody can say anything".

The apex court accordingly directed that the matter be listed on April 7 before a Bench to be separately constituted.

The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee tasked with appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs).

In March 2023, a Constitution Bench had directed that appointments to the Election Commission of India (ECI) be made by the President on the advice of a three-member panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, as an interim measure until Parliament enacted a law.

Subsequently, Parliament enacted the 2023 legislation providing that the selection committee would comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party), and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, thereby excluding the CJI.

Several petitions have been filed before the apex court contending that the exclusion of the CJI undermines the independence and transparency of the appointment process, and seeking directions to set aside the law.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
This is concerning. The 2023 law essentially gives the government full control over EC appointments. How can we expect free and fair elections if the umpire is chosen by one team? The Supreme Court's 2023 order made sense.
A
Aman W
Parliament has the right to make laws. The judiciary shouldn't overstep. If the people are unhappy with the law, they can vote for a different government to change it. That's how democracy works.
S
Sarah B
As an observer, the process seems very transparent. The CJI recusing himself and the case going to a judge who isn't a prospective CJI is a good safeguard. The focus should be on the merits of the law now.
K
Karthik V
With due respect, the government's move to exclude the CJI feels like a step back. The Election Commission needs to be above all suspicion. A neutral member like the CJI in the panel was a good check and balance. Hope the court sees this.
N
Nisha Z
The timing is always suspicious. These appointments are crucial, especially with major state elections always around the corner. The court must ensure the process is robust and impartial, not just a formality. 🤔

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50