How credible is SC ruling to form panel to appoint CEC, ECs?

This decree would have carried more moral weight if the apex court had allowed PM, LoP and legal luminaries to be part of the collegium to select judges. As they say, one mustn’t preach what he cannot practice.

The Supreme Court's move to reform the selection process of election commissioners has stirred a hornet's nest. Transparency is necessary as it removes cronyism and corruption and begets trust in the system. But it's not easy to achieve, given the way our governments, judiciary, business establishments, media houses and political parties run their business. The Election Commission is no stranger to this malaise.

Since the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) are appointed by the Prime Minister based on considerations known only to him, the general impression is that they favour him during his party's campaigning, voting, counting of polled votes and in all related matters. It's not that other parties are not winning elections under similarly selected CEC but BJP's emergence as a winner in most electoral races has become an eyesore across all sections of his opponents. Hence the rants.

The Supreme Court too seems to think likewise. It deems the present appointment process of CEC/EC as a systemic distortion and has therefore gone to correct it in right earnest. Justices have directed that the President will henceforth appoint CEC/ECs not on the recommendation of the Cabinet but of a committee comprising the PM, Leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha (LoP) and the Chief Justice of India. This decree would have carried more moral weight, if in the same breath, the apex court had allowed PM, LoP and eminent legal luminaries to be part of the collegium to select judges. As they say, one mustn't preach what he cannot practice.

There is of course no denying that justices' decision to involve CJI and LoP is a move possibly in the right direction. Hopefully, the new selectors will pick up the best talent for the job in a fair manner, CEC/EC will 'hold the scale evenly in the stormiest of times by not being servile to the powerful,' parties will not blame them for their defeat and the burden of allegations on PM Modi will lighten, who incidentally wins elections on the bulk of his work and clean image and not due to CECs' curtsies.

History, however, does not hold much promise for such tinkerings. The Director of CBI, who is selected by a similar panel, continues to face unrelenting criticism from offenders of law. Justices believe that though the CBI director gets selected by the panel, it remains a caged parrot because the executive controls its finances and functioning. To forestall a repeat of this, they have suggested that Parliament give a permanent secretariat to the Election Commission and empower the CEC to charge its expenditure to the consolidated fund of India. Sounds like a distant dream.

As the new panel meets to pick CEC/EC, the first issue that will confront the CJI is whether to go by names shortlisted by the executive for their consideration. Will the CJI reject it outright as he did in the case of the Hindenburg panel and give his own names? Or, will he ask for a more representative list including officers from non-IAS services, lawyers, chartered accountants etc. in order to discover a 'fair and unbiased overseer who refuses to provide an assured gateway to acquisition and retention of power' by the party in power.

Since he has no personal access to officers whose administrative expertise will be needed to manage this mammoth exercise, he may have to go largely by records and end up appointing an inefficient, weak and corrupt officer. But the irony is that straightforward, honest, outspoken and strict officers seldom receive outstanding reports though they are tolerated and asked to manage tough jobs. So, a battle royal is on the cards.

Some of Justices' observations on the subject are also quite disconcerting. According to them, a brute majority generated by a democratic process is undesirable unless it 'conforms to constitutional safeguards.' But aren't safeguards being provided by the judiciary itself and Parliament? Surely, they won't be happy with a wobbly coalition at the centre. Moreover, why assume that CEC/EC have been for years serving the insatiable quest of politicians to continue in the saddle. Had it been so, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and Atal Bihari Vajpayee would not have lost elections.

Further, their fondness for a fixed tenure for CEC/EC is disputable. Uninterrupted continuity in the job may give confidence to the incumbents to work fearlessly and independently but unscrupulous ones can also easily turn the institutions upside down. There are examples galore of this. Finally, how about similar panels to select ED Director, RBI Governor and Governors of States who deal with people, politicians and country's finances on a daily basis?

(Amar Bhushan worked with the Research and Analysis Wing for 24 years after briefly serving in the BSF intelligence, State Special Branch and Intelligence Bureau. He served as the Special Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat before he retired in 2005.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of OneIndia and OneIndia does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.