
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
Your observations and questions could apply to almost any country (including mine-the U.S.) Well done, Kaushal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Pat for your kind support. I thought only we were like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, no you aren’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏
Aum Shanti
LikeLiked by 1 person
Collegium system should go. Very opaque and I agree with your views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Arjun for reading and appreciating. I’m glad that this resonates with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you are welcome 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice write up sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Verma ji.
LikeLike
merci for posting
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much!
LikeLike
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.
Joanna
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
You are most welcome, and I know how able and wise you are!
Joanna
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re so kind and sweet!
LikeLike
I am only stating the fact!
Joanna
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re more than welcome, my friend!
LikeLiked by 1 person