Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner (EC). It said that the five-judge Constitution bench, while giving its ruling on the panel for appointment of Election Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), had perused the files related to the same and decided to not pass any orders against it.
Goel’s appointment had attracted SC’s attention while the bench was hearing pleas seeking a transparent mechanism for the appointment of EC and CEC. The bench had grilled the Centre for the promptness with which he was designated and remarked that the file was cleared in “haste” and “tearing hurry.”
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SV Bhatti said that the application of the law laid down in SC’s ruling on the panel had a prospective and not a retrospective effect.
“Mr Bhushan, now the law is in place…. As far as the past is concerned… it may not be correct.. as far as appointments now made it concerned, they would’ve been made earlier also… the appointment was made in between but that is not a good ground for us to interfere… It was the same process in place all these years. Normally what happens is the search committee is formed and then the Constitution bench had made observations about it and they could’ve done that… Your concern has been taken care of by the Constitution bench judgement. This has been examined and a second round may not be correct. I wanted to go through it but when all this has been examined by the Constitution bench, why should we go into it?” Justice Khanna asked.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, pleaded that selection should have been made by the committee. “When the matter commenced hearing on November 17, I mentioned that there was a vacancy still subsisting since May. Then the matter stood posted on the 22nd. On the 18th, the file was moved by the law minister. He included four names — all IAS officers, three retired. On the same day, he applied for voluntary retirement. His notice period was waived and he was allowed to retire the same day,” Bhushan said.
Andaman chief secy’s suspension stayed, Rs 5L fine imposed on L-G
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the suspension of Keshav Chandra, the chief secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands administration. It also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the lieutenant governor Admiral DK Joshi for failing to implement the directions for daily wagers’ benefits. The order was passed by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra after hearing attorney general R Venkataramani.
Referring to the order passed by the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair circuit bench, Venkataramani said that the HC “suspended the chief secretary in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction”. The CJI, in a lighter vein, said, “You (Chandra) must have done something drastic to get that order. You must have riled up the judge so much to get this.”
The bench although stayed portions of the HC order that dealt with suspension and imposition of the fine, but agreed to issue notice in the plea.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to quash the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner (EC). It said that the five-judge Constitution bench, while giving its ruling on the panel for appointment of Election Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), had perused the files related to the same and decided to not pass any orders against it.
Goel’s appointment had attracted SC’s attention while the bench was hearing pleas seeking a transparent mechanism for the appointment of EC and CEC. The bench had grilled the Centre for the promptness with which he was designated and remarked that the file was cleared in “haste” and “tearing hurry.”
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SV Bhatti said that the application of the law laid down in SC’s ruling on the panel had a prospective and not a retrospective effect.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
“Mr Bhushan, now the law is in place…. As far as the past is concerned… it may not be correct.. as far as appointments now made it concerned, they would’ve been made earlier also… the appointment was made in between but that is not a good ground for us to interfere… It was the same process in place all these years. Normally what happens is the search committee is formed and then the Constitution bench had made observations about it and they could’ve done that… Your concern has been taken care of by the Constitution bench judgement. This has been examined and a second round may not be correct. I wanted to go through it but when all this has been examined by the Constitution bench, why should we go into it?” Justice Khanna asked.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, pleaded that selection should have been made by the committee. “When the matter commenced hearing on November 17, I mentioned that there was a vacancy still subsisting since May. Then the matter stood posted on the 22nd. On the 18th, the file was moved by the law minister. He included four names — all IAS officers, three retired. On the same day, he applied for voluntary retirement. His notice period was waived and he was allowed to retire the same day,” Bhushan said.
Andaman chief secy’s suspension stayed, Rs 5L fine imposed on L-G
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the suspension of Keshav Chandra, the chief secretary of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands administration. It also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the lieutenant governor Admiral DK Joshi for failing to implement the directions for daily wagers’ benefits. The order was passed by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra after hearing attorney general R Venkataramani.
Referring to the order passed by the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair circuit bench, Venkataramani said that the HC “suspended the chief secretary in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction”. The CJI, in a lighter vein, said, “You (Chandra) must have done something drastic to get that order. You must have riled up the judge so much to get this.”
The bench although stayed portions of the HC order that dealt with suspension and imposition of the fine, but agreed to issue notice in the plea.
