NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled on Nov.15 that the Chief Election Commissioner shall remain in complete and overall control of the commission’s work and he alone is empowered to issue directions to the commission staff and its agencies.
The division bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice P.B. Sawant and Justice Yogeshwar Dayal, categorically that no other commissioner has the power to issue any directors in this context.
Admitting Chief Election Commissioner T.N.Seshan’s petition, challenging the October 1 ordinance appointing M.S.Gill and G.V.G.Krishnamoorthy as ¢lection commissioners, the court observed that it had issued the directive in order to ensure a smooth functioning of the commission and avoid confusion for administrative purposes.
The two judges also issued notice to the Union of India on Seshan’s plea for a stay of the ordinance.
The Supreme Court observed that the CEC could ascertain the views of the other two Commissioners on issues relating to the conduct of elections and other matters. However he will not be bound by their views and the CEC alone will be entitled to issue directions to all its administrative branches as well as outside agencies, Commission as well as outside agencies, the judges also added that no other Commissioners shall issue any such instructions.
Seshan’s petition says that if the executive is given the power (as per terms of the ordinance) to appoint and remove Election… Commissioners at will, the independence of the Election Commission will be at stake for it can be frustrated by the decisions of the ‘additional election commissioner: Stoners. Therefore, if the ordinance Particularly Section 10 remains on the statute books it will destroy the independence of the Election Commission.
It is only the President of India who can issue an ordinance, But he should be satisfied that conditions exist for issuing the ordinance; However these conditions do not exist.
In any case Parliament has no legislative competence to interfere with the independent functioning of the Election Commission either directly or indirectly.
The President has to be informed by the Chief Election Commissioner that conditions warranting the appointment of the two election commissioners exist. In this case the CEC was not consulted about their appointment. This it is unconstitutional,
‘The petition points out that at no point had the CEC complained about the burden of work which could have met the subjective satisfaction of the President.
Article extracted from this publication >> November 19, 1993
