By K Raveendran
This week was momentous for democracy, freedom, liberty and corporate governance in the Supreme Court, a week that saw a number of landmark decisions that made democracy more meaningful being squeezed into the relatively short period.
The first and foremost was of course the decision to change the procedure for the appointment of election commissioners, a privilege so far vested with the ruling party and as such abused left, right and centre. A constitutional bench ordered that election commissioners will henceforth be appointed by the President of India on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, and leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. If there is no official leader of opposition position, it is to be filled by the leader of the largest opposition party in parliament.
Recent developments have shown how the Election Commission, despite its professed independence and integrity, has danced to the tune of the ruling party, whether it is the date of holding elections, recognition of parties and allocation of symbols. We have even had instances of the election commissioners attending meetings called by the PMO. It was as though this was the new normal.
A bench comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, however, decided that it was time for the system to be reformed so that the Election Commission performed truly independently. The bench ordered that until parliament brings a new law to ensure transparency and independence of the Election Commission, new commissioners would be appointed by a collegium.
“Democracy is inexplicably intertwined with power to the people…Democracy facilitates the peaceful revolution in the hands of a common man if held in a free and fair manner,” the court emphasised while noting that political parties which came to power from time to time never considered the lacuna in the system. This allowed the ruling party to appoint its handpicked men (or women; we have had one lady Chief Election Commissioner in the early nineties) to the poll body, which is charged with the responsibility of conducting free and fair elections in the country, but often falls short in such task.
The court said Court said the Election Commission has to remain ‘aloof’ from all forms of subjugation by the executive. A vulnerable Election Commission would lead to an insidious situation and detract from its efficient functioning, it added.
It is heart-warming to note that the Supreme Court has, of late, been showing discomfort with the way the government has been dealing with the appointment of election commissioners. It had expressed concern at the lighting speed with which the Modi government had appointed bureaucrat Arun Goel, who was on the verge of retirement, as election commissioner in November 2022. His appointment was completed in one day although the post was lying vacant since May 2022. The court had even asked for the relevant files from the Attorney General of India.
While some sections of the public opinion has expressed reservations about the Supreme Court decision on the ground that the court is treading into the realm of legislature, the decision has been hailed as a great development for the survival of democracy in the country. The opposition parties welcomed it as a landmark decision that would pave the way for the conduct of free and fair elections in the country.
In another milestone decision in the week, the Supreme Court ordered the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to examine if the Adani group had manipulated the stock price of its group companies as also other possible violations by the group, which has hit a bottom in stock market valuations following the publication of the research by US investment firm Hindenburg, which exposed several malpractices by Adani in financial reporting.
The court also set up an experts committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Abhay Manohar Sapre to investigate the factors that led to investors losing crores of rupees worth wealth due to the volatility in the securities market following Hindenburg report. The committee is tasked with the responsibility to produce a report within two months to help the court take an informed view about the whole Hindenburg episode.
The week also saw Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud announce the constitution of a three-member bench to consider the plea by Muslim students from Karnataka to allow them to wear hijabs in government-run colleges in the state. The urgency has been necessitated by the fact that exams are slated to begin in the second week of March. A bench of the apex court had in October delivered a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court order to uphold the government’s ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, which resulted in the case ending up before the Chief Justice. (IPA Service)
Another ‘drunken urination’ aboard Delhi-bound plane 