IN DEMOCRACY, FAIR ELECTIONS NEED FAIR UMPIRES

The regime at the Centre has shown its obstinacy to institute a weak poll panel. Ultimately, the SC may have to decide on the constitutionality of the new law once it is enacted

- KALEESWARAM RAJ

IN a constitutional democracy, institutions and the individuals who run them are important. But when the institutions are captured or discredited for the sake of maintaining or strengthening the executive's power, it poses a serious threat to the constitutional tenets.

The executive, in a way, is the most 'dangerous' branch of the State, and therefore, it is essential to check its excesses through constitutionally permitted means.

We are once again in an era where the executive and Parliament are trying to substantially annul the directives of the Supreme Court. The Delhi Ordinance on the transfer and posting of government employees, which is now becoming a statutory law, is an example. Another example is the Centre's move to re-introduce the offence of sedition which the SC almost suspended last year by adding a different terminology in the 'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita'. But the most disturbing legislative move is the Centre's attempt to invalidate the Supreme Court's verdict on the committee to be constituted for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). The Court issued the directives on May 2 this year, in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.

Let us look at what the Supreme Court did in Anoop Baranwal. The Court dealt with Article 324(2) of the Constitution, which says that the appointment of the CEC and ECs shall be made by the president, "subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament". Parliament did not make any law in this regard. Thus, the appointment of the CEC and the ECs continued to be the prerogative of the executive. It enabled the government to install its own people at the helm of affairs to conduct elections.