NEW DELHI: A senior Supreme Court lawyer, KN. Bhat, who appeared for the Bihar Chief Minister, Laloo Prasad Yaday, before the apex Court in the poll postponement case, wamed that the fallout of the verdict in the Seshan case may spell danger for the independence of the Election Commission.
“The danger lies in the fact that the executive government can take shelter under the judgment to pack the Election Commission with their own ten to render it ineffective or pliable,” Bhat said in a statement.
The senior lawyer said a situation may arise where the three member Election Commission’s decisions taken unanimously or by a majority may not be to the liking of the government.
Bhatt said that the Election Commission’s vast and almost unbridled power to guide the course of the country’s political destiny had over the years become more patent and relevant.
Under the present formula, prescribed by the Supreme Court, the Center, meaning the Prime Minister, may increase the number of commissioners temporarily to seven or more and appoint handpicked men for a limited tenure, ‘These Election Commissioners who Were not intended to be permanent Appointees and others already in office would all have equal powers and Status and thereby, the executive government may be able to manipulate the work of the Commission.
Bhat said, such possibilities were not imaginary and had occurred when ‘on October 7, 1989 the multimember election commission had first been attempted.
He said jetsetter the appointment of two election commissioners, S.S. Dhanao and V.S. Scigell, the principal secretary to the then Prime Minister called on the CEC, R.V.S, Peri Sastry, and conveyed to him the Prime Minister’s desire to have Lok Sabha elections on a particular date and that the announcement in this regard should be made by the commission forthwith and before 2 p.m. on that day in any case.
The CEC took the stand that it was for the commission and not the government to fix the date of election.
The newly appointed election commissioners joined issue with the CEC and insisted that the commission forth with make an announcement as desired by the Prime Minister. The majority decision prevailed.
Bhat said that he Dhanao case also ‘gave an instance of how a multimember body could make its if the laughing stock by working at cross purposes even in such insignificant matters like engaging lawyers to represent the commission in pending cases.
“The fall of Seshan can hardly be termed as a disaster but the fallout of the verdict may spell danger to the election commission,” Bhat said. The senior lawyer said the Seshan case had, however, highlighted the need for suitable amendments to the Constitution to promote free and fair elections.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 18, 1995
