Unfair Comments against ECI; No basis to doubt today or in future: Mukul Rohatgi On Supreme Court's Judgment on ECI composition

In a bleak criticism of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that held that the appointment of an Election Commissioner shall be on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi has said that the comments made against ECI are unfair.

"I think it is an unfair comment. The Election Commission is one of our most impartial bodies from the times of late TN Seshan and I think in the last 60-70 years, it has acquitted itself admirably. Therefore, I do not see any basis for a comment of that nature at least for this body," Mukul Rohatgi said in an interview with NDTV.

On the Supreme Court's observation that unrelenting abuse of the electoral process over a period of time is the surest way to the grave of the democracy, Rohatgi said,

"This country is the largest democracy and elections are an ongoing process here...I do not think there has been a case in the last 20 years where the elections have been called manipulated even by the losing party. The issues of booth capturing and sort are now relics of the past and our elections machinery is so good and swift that results come at 8 o'clock in the morning."

"There should not be any misconception that our body is not up to the mark. Holding elections for 100 crore people is an admirable thing and I don't think that there is any basis to doubt today or in the future. Unless that situation is reached, there is no reason why the final verdict should've been what it is," he added.

A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice KM Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar on Thursday tabled its verdict in a batch of petitions recommending reform in the process of appointment of members of the Election Commission of India.

While issuing directions, the bench noted that several political parties came into power, but none framed a law for appointment in the Election Commission.

Court added that this was a "lacuna" and emphasised that the Election Commission is duty-bound to act in a fair and legal manner and to abide by the provisions of the Constitution and the directions of the Court.

In his opinion, Justice Joseph said, "A pliable Election Commission, an unfair and biased overseer of the foundational exercise of adult franchise, which lies at the heart of democracy, who obliges the powers that be, perhaps offers the surest gateway to acquisition and retention of power". (emphasise added).

Case Title: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India