• Transparent selection a must for constitutional posts

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the absence of a law governing the appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners. It has also red-flagged the ‘disturbing trend’ of the CEC being handicapped by a truncated tenure over the past two decades or so. During the UPA’s 10-year rule, there were six CECs; eight have already served after the NDA took charge in 2014. The Constitution’s Article 324, which pertains to the Election Commission (EC) and its top brass, does not mention any criterion for the appointment of these officers; nor does it spell out the conditions of their service. It’s the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, enacted in 1991, which clearly states that the CEC or an Election Commissioner shall hold office for a term of six years (or till he/she attains the age of 65 years). However, successive governments at the Centre have had no qualms about picking a new incumbent every year or two. After TN Seshan — who was the CEC from 1990 to 1996 — no officer has served a full term.

The apex court has also stressed the need for a ‘fair and transparent mechanism’ so that the ‘best man’ is appointed as the CEC. It has stated that the CEC should be capable of taking action even against the Prime Minister. However, with opacity dominating the appointments, it’s no wonder that the Centre has opposed petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and Election Commissioners.

It requires political will to take a cue from the American system, where public hearings are held over the nomination of judges of the Supreme Court and other officers. The US President’s power to make major appointments is conditionally bound by the ‘advice and consent’ of the Senate. An important exercise such as appointing the CEC and his subordinates should not be left to the whims and fancies of the executive. The arbitrary selection process, which is eroding the sanctity of these constitutional posts, must be discontinued as it poses a grave threat to India’s democratic setup.

(Tribune, India)