The Supreme Court on Friday, while passing judgment on an appeal filed by the Goa government against the Bombay High Court’s ruling on panchayat polls, observed, “Any persons employed with the central or state governments could not be appointed as election commissioners across the length and breadth of the country.”
A three-judge bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy upheld the High Court judgment which had said the independence of the Election Commission cannot be compromised and that State Election Commissioners have to be independent persons.
The Apex Court said that the most disturbing feature of these cases is the subversion of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243K of the Constitution of India. The State Election Commissioner has to be a person who is independent of the State Government as he is an important constitutional functionary who is to oversee the entire election process in the state qua panchayats and municipalities. The importance given to the independence of a State Election Commissioner is explicit from the provision for removal from his office made in the proviso to clause (2) of Article 243K. Insofar as the manner and the ground for his 94 removal from the office is concerned, he has been equated with a Judge of a High Court. Giving an additional charge of such an important and independent constitutional office to an officer who is directly under the control of the State Government is, in our view, a mockery of the constitutional mandate.
The Supreme Court declared that the additional charge given to a Law Secretary to the government of the state flouts the constitutional mandate of Article 243K.
It further directed the State Government to remedy this position by appointing an independent person to be the State Election Commissioner at the earliest.
Such person cannot be a person who holds any office or post in the Central or any State Government, it said.
The Court also made clear that henceforth, all State Election Commissioners appointed under Article 243K in the length and breadth of India have to be independent persons who cannot be persons who are occupying a post or office under the Central or any State Government.
It held, “If there are any such persons holding the post of State Election Commissioner in any other state, such persons must be asked forthwith to step down from such office and the State Government concerned be bound to fulfil the constitutional mandate of Article 243K by appointing only independent persons to this high constitutional office. The directions contained in this paragraph are issued under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to ensure that the constitutional mandate of an independent State Election Commission which is to conduct elections under Part IX and IXA of the Constitution be strictly followed in the future.”
The judgment came as the Apex Court critcized the Goa government for appointing its law secretary as the state election commissioner for conducting municipal council elections in the state. The state government gave the law secretary the additional charge of the state election commissioner.
The Court also directed the Goa state election body to issue the notification for the panchayat polls within 10 days from today and complete the poll process by April 30.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had cancelled elections to five municipalities of Margao, Mapusa, Mormugao, Sanguem and Quepem in the state for not reserving wards for women as per the law.
Read the Judgment here;
State-of-Goa-Anr.-Vs-Fouziya-Imtiaz-Shaikh-Anr.