Supreme Court questions whether Arun Goels appointment as Election Commissioner was in such a hurry . The court also quoted how one of the Election Commissioners resigned .
New Delhi: The Supreme Court questioned today whether the ex-IAS officer Arun Goel's appointment as Election Commissioner was in such a hurry.Continuing with some stinging remarks on the procedure, today it went straight into Arun Goel's files, despite the government's opposition to a mini trial in the larger controversy of how the commissioners are chosen...The file was published on November 18; it was published on the same day.On the same day as the Prime Minister, he suggests the name.We do not want any conflict, so was it done in a rush?It was announced on May 15 that this opening was declared vacant.Show us from May to November what compelled the government to do it quickly.It was noted that the experiment began and was completed on the same day, not even in 24 hours.What was the most recent assessment? We are being precise.If all four names are carefully chosen, we are concerned with the selection process, as we are men.The five-judge Constitution bench, led by Justice KM Joseph, said yesterday that Arun Goel was appointed Chief Election Commissioner after Rajiv Kumar deposed as secretary-level officer in the government last week and that he was appointed after the commission's website.Mr Bhushan reported that he was released from the VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) on Friday and appointed as an election commissioner, and that he was due to retire on December 31 at the age of 60.The court dismissed the government's counsel, Attorney General R Venkataramani, who said it was unfair to take up individual cases. The court told the government attorney that you have until tomorrow.The specific hanky panky check came at a time when the court has been scathing about the wider scheme.If the Election Commissioner is asked to take on none less than the Prime Minister, is it possible?The court also quoted how one of the Election Commissioners resigned.The court did not give names, rather asserting that the appointment system requires a larger body than just the union cabinet to rule on names.There is a great need for reform, according to the court. It calls for a Bill of Rights by Parliament to specify the procedure, but it hasn't been adopted in the last 72 years.The government has cited a 1991 constitution and past rules of appointment proposed by the PM-led cabinet to the President, who then selects an officer.Stray situations cannot be grounds for the court to intervene.The government's lawyer described earlier today's efforts to safeguard the situation.The first step was to produce a list of all top bureaucrats. It should have a transparent system, it said.