Author: Abinaya. R, Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Pudupakkam
ABSTRACT:
In the case of Anoop baranwal vs. Union of India , most significant landmark judgement in India for selection committee of chief election’s commissioner.the election of election’s commissioner is vested with central and state government under the Government of India act 1935 . A minority sub committee meeting was conducted that Minorities should represent in the election’s commission but the selection process of election’s commissioner was appointed by the president of India the members as parliament and legislative. So The petitioners has filed a case under Article 32 of Indian Constitution that challenges Article 324(2) of Constitution. The appointment of the chief election’s commissioner and other vacancy of election’s commission was appointed by the president, so the contention is the election’s commission should be an Independent body and removal of election’s commissioner should give strong protection to them. There should be an independent secretariat election’s commissioner to declare his expenditure as charged and consolidated fund of India. the supreme Court observe that election’s commission should be independent so until legislative makes law the selection committee will be same
To the point
In the clutch of writ petitioner maintain under Art 32 of Indian Constitution.the court is constantly the true effect of Art 324 of the Constitution is appointment of election commissioner. The appointment of election commissioner under Art 324 includes the executive and legislature. So asked the independent selection for appointment of election commissioner. The appointments of the election’s commissioner had followed since 1935.from 2015 . Second administration reform commission and in its fourth report of january 2007,Dr.dunesh goswami committee etc gave a statement that there should be an independent system for appointment of election’s commissioner. If the independent system created for appointment of election’s commissioner the there will be misuse or overrule in certain cases.The petitioners stay that elections of election commissioner should be fair and transparent. The independent secretary for election’s commission to see expenditure as charged from the consolidated fund of India . The removal of the election’s commissioner should be independent so it can give protection to them.
Legal jargon;
The Anoop baranwal was writ petitioners under Article 32 of Indian Constitution challenge art 324 and particularly 324(2) say that appointment, transfer and other subjects made behalf of president
Article 53 deals with the executive power of India and it contended that the law contemplated under Article 324(2) is law contemplated under article 53(3) (b) . The absence of a law president has Constitutional power. The Constitution provides for complete machinery for appointment to commission
Article 14 : the appointment of commission should not be arbitrary and election’s commission should be fair and transparent so the system violates the right to equality and Article 21 deals with that election’s should conduct Under free and fair manner.
Article 326 deals with adult suffrage so this should focus on a list of voter and eligible to voting age as 18 and there should be free and fair. The machinery of voting should be transparent.
The proof :
The Supreme Court observed that the parliament has fail to enact specific law for appointment so appointment of election’s commission is monopoly so the IAS officers were connected with political parties and so it necessary to provide a free and fair system. Under article 74 of India Constitution deals with the separation of power during the selection process so it is mandatory to provide a system.
The supreme Court observed and says that the election’s commission should be free and fair system so the appointment, transfer and removal of election’s commission should be in fair manner so the court say the legislative to make law until the same system was followed.
CASE LAW :
1. Vineet narain v. Union of India 1998, say that the appointment of central bureau of India and central vigilance commission was unfair and untransparent way it involvement of political parties so similar to anoop baranwal say that appointment of election’s commission should free and fair and the executive to provide an proper guidelines for the appointment
2.prakash singh v. Union of India(2006) says that a police force was submissive to Efficient to public dissent rather than to government bodies so the executive has failed to protect the public dissent So the separation of power so the executive power should adhere to public similar to case of anoop baranwal that election’s commission should be free and fair manner
3. Supreme Court advocate on record association v. Union of India (2015) say that appointment of judges was done based on the advice of prime minister to president the supreme Court Judge was appointment so this system challenged so judiciary should be separate form executive so the court observe to provide independent collegium system which was similar to anoop baranwal that appointment of election’s commission should be an independent body.
Conclusion :
The supreme Court observe that the selection committee of the election Commission should be independent because India is an democracy country people has right to choose their own leaders so the selection committee consists of prime minister, opposite party leader which lead to unfair election’s process because of the connection the IAS kept with them. It is important tl have an state elections commission and the system of voting and lost of voters should be provided free and transparent manner. The election’s commission should have separate secretary for calculating the expenditure and charge form Consolidated fund of India.
FAQS
1. Why was the election’s commission should be Independent?
Under Article 14 and 21 of Indian Constitution the people right to be part of election’s commission and the people has right to know the election’s conduct was free and fair manner
2. Why was the CEC and other election’s commission bill, 2023 was challenge?
The 2023 act was challenge because the major contention is to bring an independent election’s commission but still the selection committee was am involved by legislative so it is unfair.
