Questions arise over the appointment of Arun Goel as Election Commissioner, raised by the Supreme Court. The court has requested the Centre to submit files related to Goel's appointment. During the proceeding, a five-judge bench emphasized their desire to ensure there's no 'Hanky Panky' - no foul play involved.
The hearing over the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners is ongoing in the Supreme Court. The deliberation is conducted by a bench presided by Justice KM Joseph, along with Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Rishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar.
The bench seeks clarity on the appointment process asking, "If the appointment is legally correct, then what is there to fear?" They noted it would have been better if this appointment had not occurred during the hearing.
Why is Arun Goel's appointment controversial? What's happening in the Supreme Court hearing? What's the Centre's stance? Let's unravel the story...
A plea was filed in the Supreme Court requesting a collegium-like system for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, akin to the system used for appointing judges. The petitioner Anoop Baranwal suggested this to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
The collegium system involves supreme court judges nominating candidates for judicial appointments, subject to government approval. Such a structure was proposed for the Election Commission to safeguard its autonomy.
Post retirement from government service, individuals are appointed to the positions of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, with a tenure lasting either six years or until the age of 65. Arun Goel's instant transition from voluntary retirement to Election Commissioner is under scrutiny.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, advocating for the petitioner, criticized the haste in Goel's appointment following his voluntary retirement, hinting at the possibility of undue government influence.
The Supreme Court queries about the process behind Goel's appointment. They're keen to understand whether the procedures stand up to scrutiny, separate from personal repute.
Attorney General Venkataramani argues that procedures align with the 1991 legislation, and there is no need for court interference unless a compelling issue arises.
Source: aajtak
