As the Opposition remains resolute in its protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, demanding his resignation over allegations surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, former election commissioner Ashok Lavasa has criticised the changes made to the selection panel for appointing election commissioners. He said replacing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet minister makes the third member’s role “completely ineffective”, as a minister is unlikely to disagree with the Prime Minister.
In its landmark 2023 judgment, a Constitution Bench had initially mandated a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI. In an exclusive interview with The Free Press Journal, Lavasa said the panel envisaged by the Supreme Court could not be accused of having members who “think alike”. However, replacing the CJI with a Union Cabinet minister changes that dynamic.
“Even if appointees are efficient and impartial, the process leaves a perception of bias,” Lavasa said, arguing that the composition of the panel itself should inspire public confidence.
Lavasa suggests broader selection panel
Lavasa suggested that the government broaden the selection panel by adding one or two members who are independent of the existing stakeholders, though he said they need not necessarily be the CJI. “This would improve the image of both the Commission and the government,” he said.
Supreme Court to hear plea
The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea seeking reconsideration of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, should be referred to a larger Constitution Bench.
The 2023 law replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet minister on the three-member selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Cabinet minister.
The petitioners have challenged the law, arguing that the change could undermine the independence and neutrality of the Election Commission. On September 23, a bench of Justices Datta and Sharma delivered divergent opinions on the Centre’s plea seeking reference of the challenge to a five-judge Constitution Bench. While Justice Datta declined the Centre’s request, Justice Sharma favoured the reference.
Split verdict awaits resolution
Following the split verdict, the matter was placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant on the administrative side for the constitution of a bench of appropriate strength to provide an authoritative resolution to the issue.
In his interview with The FPJ, Ashok Lavasa raised serious concerns over the conduct of the SIR, particularly voter deletions in West Bengal, and suggested a commission of inquiry to examine whether the deletions affected election outcomes. He said the Supreme Court or ECI could halt the incomplete third phase of SIR, which he described as “full of infirmities”, and revert to the existing rolls.
Lavasa also questioned the ECI’s handling of Form 6, decision-making process and lack of minutes, arguing that unilateral decisions and prolonged technical glitches raise “grave misgivings” about the poll panel’s functioning. He said that if a link is established between wrongful voter deletions and election results in specific constituencies, fresh elections could be warranted.
