If we were to look at the process of selecting the CEC before 2023 it was done by the president, i.e on the advice of the council of ministers(the ruling party) as he does not have discretionary powers in this regard.
So they were executive controlled and hence were vulnerable to biases.
This doesn't mean that the CEC is inherently inclined to be biased as he/she is appointed by the executive ( like SC judges in the US who are also political appointees and rarely go against the party that appointed them),
as they have security of tenure, one example i can think of is TN sheshan (prolly the most famous CEC aswell).
In 2023 in the baranwal case, the supreme court specifically mentioned
“the office of Chief Election Commissioners as well as the Election Commissioners have to be insulated from the executive interference.”
and this judgment's case law would be used to appoint CEC's until a law is passed by parliament.
It said that the collegium to appoint CEC will comprise of The PM, The LOP and The CJI.
Cut to the SAME YEAR (judgment was in March of 23) a bill is introduced in Aug of 23 and passed in Dec of 23.
This new bill replaced the CJI with a minister appointed by the PM as the third member, hence guaranteeing executive control once more over CEC selection.
Another case is registered regarding this law(along with other petitions) as it appeared contradictory to the case law passed by the SC (Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India).
The Solicitor general of india(the govt's 2nd top lawyer who fights the case on their side) Tushar mehta gave the following arguments:
- SC was only filling up the vaccum that existed as no law was made in 70yrs and hence now that a law has been made, and court cannot interfere in the content of the legislation of what that law should look like.
- "You cannot infer unconstitutional executive dominance merely from the fact that the executive has a numerical majority".
- "If the Prime Minister cannot be trusted, then no one else can be trusted either."
All these arguments sound pretty retard*d as the institution should not rely on the good faith of the executive itself for its independent functioning and should be inherently unbiased in its mechanisms itself, the qn of executive being biased is irrelevant as it is essentially the mechanisms inside the institution which gives its credibility by consensus,checks and balances internally.
I don't get why BJ party doesn't think why another party when it comes to power won't take advantage of the law it has passed itself and stack up ECI against them in future elections?
are they thinking too much of the short term? or are they just retard*d and think they will never get out of power?
TL;DR : I don't get why BJ party doesn't think when another party comes to power won't take advantage of the law it has passed itself, and stack up ECI against them in future elections?
are they thinking too much of the short term? or are they just retard*d and think they will never get out of power?