Why in news?
The Supreme Court is hearing a PIL on the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
What is the reason behind?
- Article 324(2)of Constitution states that the President shall, with aid and advice of Council of Ministers, appoint CEC and ECs, till Parliament enacts a law fixing the criteria for selection, conditions of service and tenure.
- But a law has not been enacted for the purpose so far.
- Hence a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a fair and transparent procedure for appointment of CEC and ECs.
- It has pointed out that the process for appointment of the CEC and ECs was different from those for other top constitutional positions.
- The Supreme Court, earlier, acknowledged that till now good persons have been appointed in the poll panel.
- Yet, it has questioned the mandate of the parliament to frame a law for this purpose and has recently referred the matter to the Constitution Bench.
How does the electoral system evolve in India?
- Electoral democracy in India owes a great deal to the foresight of the Constituent Assembly.
- When the Constituent Assembly debated how free and fair elections should be ensured, three important questions arose.
- Whether free and fair elections should be made a part of fundamental rights or an independent institution, outside the executive, should be established to conduct the elections?
- The Assembly opted for the latter and created the Election Commission of India.
- Whether to have a single, centralised body for elections to the Lok Sabha and State legislatures or not?
- One proposal was that the ECI be confined to federal elections, and separate institutions be set up to conduct elections to State legislatures.
- However, with increasing tension among communities, the Assembly feared partisan action in the States and opted for a single national institution, the ECI.
- Originally, the Constitution had provided for tribunals set up by the ECI to hear election petitions.
- But aggrieved parties approached the courts, and the courts decided to hear election petitions.
- Then the ECI itself recommended that election petitions be heard by the judiciary, and in 1966, the law was changed accordingly.
- How to ensure the independence of the ECI?
- The Assembly provided simply for the CEC to be appointed by the President, leaving it to the legislature to enact a suitable law, which never happened.
- Also on removal, though the CEC is provided with a security of tenure and could only be removed through impeachment, other EC’s can be removed on the recommendations of CEC.
- Hence for the ECs, even the safeguard of removal was not provided, which is also a subject matter of the above-mentioned PIL.
What has this resulted in?
- From 1967 to 1991, the one-party dominance in the national politics was getting faded, political competition intensified.
- The political actors stepped up violence and electoral malpractices.
- The ECI could not arrest this deterioration.
- Several State governments made large-scale transfers on the eve of elections and posted pliable officials in key positions, who sometimes flouted the ECI’s orders.
- However, during the 1996 general election, the ECI restored the credibility of the election process.
- It publicly reprimanded politicians for violating the Model Code of Conduct, postponed/ cancelled elections if their credibility was compromised, intensified supervision of elections, and insisted on action against errant officials.
- The ECI has since become an institution of some authority, but still controversies over appointments of ECs, allegations of partisanship, voter bribery and paid news prevail.
What should be done?
- A selection committee for appointment (CEC and EC) should be made which could involve –
- The prime minister
- The leader of opposition
- The speaker (presiding officer of the Lok Sabha)
- Thus, though there can be no perfect process, any process involving greater inclusion, representativeness and diversity would be superior to the government of the day making the selection.
Source: The Hindu
