Maintain Sanctity of the Constitution

Hearing petitions seeking reforms in the appointment of election commissioners, recently a constitution bench of the Supreme Court asked the Government to show the files relating to the appointment of Arun Goel as Election Commissioner.

While doing so, the bench made some unwarranted observations on the impartiality and integrity of the election commission, on the point of tenure and selection process.

The bench remarked that the most chief election commissioners (CECs) have short and truncated tenures, with no full term, thus implying that they may be pliable. So something has to be corrected somewhere to instal CECs like T N Seshan.

But what is the evidence to conclude that the commission lacks independence? In fact, T N Seshan was also appointed through the existing system.

For a common man like me, it’s confusing and looks like a hypocrisy. Does it not apply to self-serving process of collegium to appoint judges to the higher courts?

The last Chief Justice (CJI) got just 74 days in office, and he is not alone. Most previous chief justices got less than two years. Which one got a “full term”?

If the court is so much concerned about fairness and transparency, why doesn’t the Supreme Court collegium share its own selection processes, file notings and discussions with the government or public?

Collegium system of judges choosing judges is ‘alien’ to the constitution, but the Supreme Court decided to continue it after striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in 2015.

Casting an aspersion on the Election Commission, which has conducted hundreds of elections fairly competently, is a very disturbing trend. How one constitutional arm can delegitimise another?

I don’t know what will be the decision of the bench that feels that CJI should be involved in the process of appointing election commissioners, as if he has a magic wand to eradicate any malice.

Instead of ensuring justice to everyone without delay, judiciary is trying to grab powers from other arms. When millions of cases are pending in different courts, the judiciary, as a guardian of the constitution, should find ways to bring out improvement in the functioning of courts.

In fact this issue is not between the two constitutional arms, but of a prime importance for those who care for the sanctity of the constitution.

All the three pillars, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary should be strong in their professional competence, ethical behaviour and commitment. No pillar of the constitution should be allowed to digress into other pillars.

Incidentally today (26th November) is the Constitution Day. On this day in 1949, the Constitution of India was adopted.

The government should take an initiative by convening a meeting with the political parties and representatives from judiciary to evolve a consensus on how to work within the existing framework of the Constitution in the letter and spirit.

–Kaushal Kishore



  1. Thank you, Kaushal, for your article about the Constitution of India.
    I find your views wholly commendable and I love the presentation, especially as I have never seen the impressive and ornate plaque.
    How many times I wrote that you should run the country, sadly, it is not your desired path.


    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you, Joanna, for your kind words and unwavering support. I always respect your words and feelings, but I know my limitations in the present set-up. Thanks again for having so much confidence in my ability.


  2. Just like interpersonal relationships go through ups and downs, it is natural that the relationships between the three pillars also goes through highs and lows. I surmise the reaction from the court is a result of the widespread belief prevailing today that the Executive often rules through the brute force of its majority, and has also made inroads into many other institutions, with the latter following double standards – one for the rulers, another for those who happen to be in opposition. I think it is a part of the democratic process of checks and balances maturing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All have rights to voice their views, that’s the beauty of democracy, but one thing should always be kept that the same should not become counter-productive. Thank you for taking your time to read and share your thoughts.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, voicing our views is important, but the party of the other part should also be willing to listen and engage in a conversation. I am impressed by the clarity of your thought on this subject and look forward to reading more such posts in future.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s