The government opposed the demand for the appointment of election commissioners from a three-member collegium
The Attorney General said that from Vineet Narayan case till now, in all the cases that the court has given orders, orders have been given to fill or correct the void in the law, but this thing is not applicable in the present case. Secondly, many aspects have been raised in the petitions but ultimately it comes down to changing Article 324(2) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is considering the demand that the election commissioners be appointed by a three-member collegium. There are several petitions pending in the Court demanding that the appointment of the three Election Commissioners (Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners) be made by the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Lok Sabha, on the lines of the CBI Director and the CVC (Chief Vigilance Commissioner). The Leader of the Opposition (LOP) should have a three-member collegium. On Thursday, the hearing on the matter began in a five-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court. The petitioners insisted on their demands citing the impartiality of the Election Commission but the central government opposed the petitions. The central government said that the court cannot order in this matter because it is a matter related to constitutional policy and doing so would be a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court will hear the matter again on Tuesday.
Four petitions are pending in the Supreme Court, in which there has been a demand to appoint election commissioners from a three-member collegium. These petitions have been filed by Anoop Barnwal, Association for Democratic Reforms, Ashwani Upadhyay and Jaya Thakur. A five-judge constitution bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Rai and CT Ravikumar is hearing the matter. After completion of the arguments of Prashant Bhushan, Gopal Shankar Narayanan and other lawyers on behalf of the petitioners in the case, Attorney General R Venkataramani started presenting the case on behalf of the Central Government.
The Attorney General said that from Vineet Narayan case till now, in all the cases that the court has given orders, orders have been given to fill or correct the void in the law, but this thing is not applicable in the present case. Secondly, many aspects have been raised in the petitions but ultimately it comes down to changing Article 324(2) of the Constitution. In this, the court has to decide what to add or change in it, but the court cannot do so. Because apart from this being an issue of constitutional policy, this would be a direct constitutional amendment. The Attorney General said that these are his arguments broadly on the petitions.
Track Latest News and Trending News Coverage on www.thenationalbulletin.in and get news updates from India and around the world.
For breaking news and live news updates, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram. Read more on Latest National News on The National Bulletin