LexT.N. SESHAN, CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A T.N. SESHAN, CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER "'!'-'-. OF INDIA ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS B JULY 14, 1995 [A.M. AHMADI, CJ, J.S. VERMA N.P. SINGH, S.P. BARUCHA AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] ,, Constitution of India: Clause (1) of Art. 123. c Promulgation of Ordinance-Exercise of Power by the President, under Art 123( 1) of the Constitution of India-Ordinance (No. 32 of 1993) entitled "The Chief Election Commissioner & other Election Commissioners (Condi- tions of Seroice) Amendment Ordinance 1993'~ amended, substituted, and D inserted certain provisions to the "Chief Election Commissioner & other Commissioners (Condition of S eroice) Act 1991''-Detennining the conditions of seroice of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commis- sioners and to provide for the procedure for transaction of the business by the Election Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. ... E Constitution of India-Art 324. · Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission Exercise of Powers under Art. 324(2), of the Constitu- tion of India-Number of Election Commissioner, beside the CEC was fixed F at tw~By subsequent notification, two ECs were appointed-Validity of the Ordinance, notifications and the consequential orders and appointments- Whether arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. Interpretation of clause 2 of Article 324-Whether envisages a multi- G member Election <;:ommission. Distinction between CEC and other ECs- Whether essentially on account of their tenure-By virtue of Ordinance, CEC and ECs are placed at par in the matter of salary etc. First proviso to clause (5) of Art. 324-Whether the type of ir- "' removability con/ e1Ted on the Chief Election Commissioner is an indicia for ,...... H confening a higher status on him vis-a-vis the otherElection Commissioners. 106 -- T.N.SESHAN v. U.0.1. 107 in a multi-member body-Wliether Chief Election Commission is obliged to A act as its Chaimwn-Fzmction of Election Commissioner-Wliether merely advis01y--ldea of exclusive decision making power in the Chief Election Commissioner-Not conducive to democratic principles. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Condition of Service) Ordinance, (now Act) 1993. Chapter III of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Condition of Service) Act, 1993,-Sec. 9, 1<>--Constitutional validity of-Question of legislative competence-Clauses 2 and 5 of Article B 324, contemplates and expressly provides a statute for appointment of Elec- C tion Commissioners and for their conditions of service-Hence provisions to that effect cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. Status of Chief Election Commissioner-Whether akin to a judge of the Supreme Court of India-The position of Chief Election Commission in the Wa"ant of precedence-Whether requires reconsideration-Government D should not confer equivalence ·or interfere with the WWTant of Precedence, if it is likely to affect the position of High Court and Supreme Court Judges, however pressing the demand may be, without first seeking the views of the Chief Justice of India. By an amendment Ordinance (now Act) entitled "The Chief Election E Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Condition of Service) Ordinance, 1993." (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) the "Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners (Condition of Service Act) 1991" was sought to be amended and accordingly the number of Election Commissioners, besides the Chief Election Commissioner was F fixed two. Subsequently, in exercise of its powers under Clause 2 Art. 324, the President of India, by notification dated 1.10.1993 appointed the two Election Commissioners. The validity of· the said Ordinance as well as the consequential notification was assailed by the incumbent Chief Election Commissioner G and another, as being arbitrary and unconstitutional. Writ Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for a declaration that the ordinance was arbitrary, ultra vires the Constitution and hence void and also for quash- ing the said notification and the appointments of the two Election Com- missioners. H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A In support of the petitions, it was contended that (a) .The intention B c behind issuing the ordinance was purely ma/aft.de, in order to sideline the Chief Election Commissi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.