The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Centre over the procedure adopted for the appointment of election commissioners and asked how six names were shortlisted from 200 within a few hours.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said the selection committee should have been given more time to apply its mind on the appointment of the election commissioners.
"For one vacancy, there were five names. For two, you send six names. Why not 10? This is the language of the statute for one vacancy, five names have to be recommended. This appears from the record," the bench told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
"They (the search committee) can consider 200 names, but what is the time given, maybe two hours? Two hundred names to be considered in two hours? You could have been transparent," it said.
Mehta pointed out that the two new election commissioners were among the six short-listed from a pool of 200 names suggested by a search panel.
"Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We are dealing with the Representation of the People Act, which according to me, is the highest after the Constitution. Why leave any scope for the public to raise an eyebrow," Justice Datta told Mehta.
Justice Datta further questioned Mehta about the reason behind advancing the process from March 15 to March 14.
"For selecting one (election commissioner), you keep on 15th and for selecting two, you have advanced the meeting to 14th? Why," Justice Datta asked.
Mehta replied that the selection committee members were aware of the six officials, who held offices across political party lines.
The bench said it prima facie agrees with the submission of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO 'Association for Democratic Reforms', that the procedure adopted for the appointment of two new election commissioners was not transparent.
"The selection committee for appointment of election commissioners should have been given a fair share of time to understand the background of candidates," the bench observed.
On Bhushan pointing out to the bench that the meeting of the selection committee was advanced, Justice Khanna told Mehta that the Centre should have deferred the meeting by a day or two as it knew about the pendency of the matter in the apex court.
"The manner in which it was done could have been avoided. These are constitutional appointments. The matter was sub-judice. Plus, a member of the selection committee had also said that he needed some time to go through the names," Justice Khanna said.
Leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury had said he needed some time to go through the 200 names.
The top court said it is not questioning the credentials of the election commissioners appointed but the procedure.
The bench, however, refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, saying that doing so would lead to 'chaos and uncertainty' as the Lok Sabha elections are around the corner.
Under the new law, the selection panel has the prime minister as the chairperson, and the leader of the opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party and a Union minister nominated by the prime minister are the two other members.
A five-judge Constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
