Cannot Call The Election Commissioner A ‘Yes Man’ Just Because Appointed By The Government: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (17 April) disagreed with the contention of the NGO Association For Democratic Reforms (ADR) that the Election Commissioner would be a “yes man” for the government just because the latter chose him.

The statement came from a bench headed by Justice K M Joseph and comprising Justice B V Nagaratna, while Justice Joseph recused himself from hearing the case.

The petition filed by ADR challenges the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner, on the grounds that it is arbitrary and violative of the constitutional integrity and independence of the office of the Election Commissioner of India.

The NGO further seeks that the Supreme Court quash the 19 November appointment of Goel and fill the vacancy as per the Constitution bench’s 2 March ruling — which would have to be done by a panel comprising of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, sought to draw a comparison between Goel’s case and the appointment of P J Thomas as chief wigilance commissioner by the erstwhile UPA government.

Justice Nagarathna also remarked, “You cannot just set aside his appointment on the ground that he may not act justly or will be a yes man.”

Justice Joseph replied that what Bhushan is apprehending is “something taking place in the future” and that “his appointment was made under the law as it stood then.”

As far as the appointment of Goel as per the 2 March judgment goes, Justice Thomas said that there was a system back then for appointing election commissioners and that the petitioners cannot just rely on the court’s judgment.

Goel, a retired IAS officer of the 1985 Punjab cadre, was appointed the Election Commissioner of India on 19 November 2022, while the Constitution Bench was hearing the case. Goel is a postgraduate in development economics from Churchill College, University of Cambridge.