Editor's Pick | Centre defends appointment of ECs in Supreme Court

The Union Government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the appointment of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar, criticised as hasty and opaque, was felt necessary as part of their constitutional duty to conduct the elections on time. The Union Government refuted allegations about having appointed candidates preferred by them to fill the two vacancies in the Commission. The petitioner in the case, Association for Democratic Reforms, has argued that the new law, the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Act, 2023, aided the government by giving it a dominant role in the appointment process. The statute countermanded a previous SC judgment, by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister as a member of the Selection Committee. The Centre countered this, saying that the argument suffered from a “fundamental fallacy”. It elaborated that the presence of a judge would not necessarily guarantee the independence of the EC. It further argued that the appointment paradigm envisaged by the Court was a stop-gap arrangement. It was meant to last only till Parliament made a law on EC appointments. The affidavit also refuted allegations made by leader of the Opposition in the last Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. He accused the government of having kept him in the dark about the candidates being considered for the two positions. In response, the government put forth that the profiles of the eligible candidates were shared with him on March 13. The deliberations of the committee were said to be of a collaborative nature, with discussions taking place during the actual meeting itself. The case would now be heard on Friday. The Hindu’s Editorials Ferocious friends: On certain breeds of dogs and public safety The lure of lucre: On the 17th edition of the IPL and beyond The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz When will the SC hear pleas seeking stay on CAA? March 30 April 3 April 9 April 10 To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 21 March 2024 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]Open in browser [Mail icon]More newsletters Centre defends appointment of ECs in Supreme Court The Union [Government told the Supreme Court]( on Wednesday that the [appointment of Election Commissioners]( Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar, criticised as hasty and opaque, was felt necessary as part of their constitutional duty to conduct the elections on time. The Union Government refuted allegations about having appointed candidates preferred by them to fill the two [vacancies in the Commission](. The petitioner in the case, Association for Democratic Reforms, has argued that the new law, the [Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Act, 2023]( aided the government by giving it a dominant role in the appointment process. The statute countermanded a [previous SC judgment]( by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister as a member of the Selection Committee. The Centre countered this, saying that the argument suffered from a “fundamental fallacy”. It elaborated that the presence of a judge would not necessarily guarantee the independence of the EC. It further argued that the appointment paradigm envisaged by the Court was a stop-gap arrangement. It was meant to last only till Parliament made a law on EC appointments. The affidavit also refuted allegations made by leader of the Opposition in the last Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. He accused the government of having kept him in the dark about the candidates being considered for the two positions. In response, the government put forth that the profiles of the eligible candidates were shared with him on March 13. The deliberations of the committee were said to be of a collaborative nature, with discussions taking place during the actual meeting itself. The case would now be heard on Friday. The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][Ferocious friends: On certain breeds of dogs and public safety]( [Arrow][The lure of lucre: On the 17th edition of the IPL and beyond]( The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz When will the SC hear pleas seeking stay on CAA? - March 30 - April 3 - April 9 - April 10 To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here]( [Sign up for free]( Today’s Best Reads [[Analysis | RJD-led Mahagatbandhan on the brink with Pappu Yadav’s entry into Congress] Analysis | RJD-led Mahagatbandhan on the brink with Pappu Yadav’s entry into Congress]( [[U.S. recognises Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory: official] U.S. recognises Arunachal Pradesh as Indian territory: official]( [[BJP’s dwindling popularity in Andhra Pradesh] BJP’s dwindling popularity in Andhra Pradesh]( [[Watch | Fate of middle managers in a world of cost-cuts] Watch | Fate of middle managers in a world of cost-cuts]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](