Justice Nariman strongly opposes Election Commission Bill, cites threat to Independence

In a scathing critique, Justice Nariman on December 15 urged the Court to strike down the Election Commission Bill, asserting that it jeopardizes the independence of the Election Commission.

Justice Nariman expressed opposition to the proposed Election Commission Bill, arguing that if passed, it would severely imperil the independence of the Election Commission (EC). The  jurist raised crucial concerns regarding the potential ramifications of the bill stating the need for judicial intervention to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Addressing a diverse range of issues, Justice Nariman highlighted the complexities surrounding the disqualification of members, particularly in cases of defection. He proposed the establishment of an election tribunal, led by a Supreme Court judge, to adjudicate disputes related to defection—a move he believes would contribute to a fair and impartial resolution of such matters.

Justice Nariman underlined the significance of maintaining the independence of constitutional bodies, such as the EC, lamenting the bill's subversion of authority to executive bodies and the leader of the opposition. He cautioned against appointing individuals whose independence might be compromised, emphasizing the need for a fair and unbiased electoral process.

Reflecting on the recent SC judgment on the abrogation of Article 370, Justice Nariman questioned the decision to declare a state as two Union Territories, leaving it without a democratic government for an extended period. He expressed concern over the disturbing trend of governors delaying the assent to bills, citing a case in Kerala where bills were held up for over 23 months.

Furthermore, Justice Nariman scrutinized recent events affecting media freedom, citing the ban on a BBC documentary discussing the Prime Minister and the harassment faced by the organization following the ban. He reiterated the importance of upholding constitutional principles, particularly those outlined in Part IV, which addresses the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Justice Nariman invoked constitutional provisions, including Article 3, to emphasize the federal principle and the need to diffuse power. He expressed confidence that the controversial Election Commission Bill, if enacted, would face legal challenges and called for its potential rejection on the grounds of being an arbitrary piece of legislation.