SC to hear on Nov 11 pleas against law removing CJI from Election Commissioners’ appointment panel
New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on November 11 a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which excludes the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the panel responsible for appointing Election Commissioners.
The matter was listed before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi on Monday but could not be taken up due to lack of time. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, mentioned the matter, requesting that the Court allocate a few hours for hearing. Responding, Justice Kant said the case could be mentioned again on the morning of November 11 so that non-urgent matters could be adjourned for the day.
The bench had earlier agreed to hear the case before the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) following the retirement of Rajiv Kumar. Although it was initially scheduled for hearing in February, the matter was not taken up on the listed dates. Subsequently, Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment as CEC on February 17 prompted petitioners to urge for an early hearing, citing alleged violations of the Supreme Court’s Anoop Baranwal judgment.
The petitioners have argued that recent appointments were made in the same manner as before, contrary to the Court’s earlier ruling intended to safeguard the Election Commission’s independence. However, the Supreme Court had declined to stay the operation of the 2023 Act in March 2024.
The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 was enacted by Parliament in December 2023, replacing the system prescribed by the Supreme Court’s March 2023 judgment, which mandated that ECs be appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. The new law instead provides for a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.
The legislation has been challenged by Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), and other petitioners, who contend that removing the CJI from the panel undermines the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unemployed 'youngsters like cockroaches' become media, activists; attack system: CJI
New Delhi (PTI): Likening some unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday said they go on to "become" media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.
The comments came while a bench of CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pulling up a lawyer for "pursuing" a senior advocate designation. It said there were already "parasites" in society who attack the system and asked the petitioner whether he wanted to join hands with them.
"The entire world may be eligible to become senior (advocate), but at least you are not entitled," the bench told the petitioner lawyer.
A visibly anguished CJI observed that if the Delhi High Court would confer senior advocate designation upon the petitioner, the apex court would set that aside seeing his professional conduct.
The CJI also referred to the kind of language used by the petitioner on Facebook.
"There are already parasites of society who attack the system and you want to join hands with them?" he said.
"There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don't get any employment or have any place in profession. Some of them become media, some of them become social media, RTI activists and other activists and they start attacking everyone," he said.
The bench also asked the petitioner whether he did not have any other litigation.
"Is this the conduct of a person who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate?" the bench asked.
It said senior advocate designation is something that is conferred on a person and is not to be pursued.
"You are pursuing it. Does it look proper?" the top court said, asking whether a senior advocate designation was a status symbol to be kept ornamentally.
It also observed that it wanted to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to verify the degrees of many of those who were wearing black robes as there were serious doubts over the genuineness of their degrees.
It said the Bar Council of India would never do anything on this issue as they "need their votes".
The petitioner apologised to the bench and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench allowed the withdrawal of the petition.
