1995 (7) TMI 422 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Ordinance (now Act) and the consequential orders and appointments of the Election Commissioners (ECs).
2. Allegations of mala fides in the issuance of the Ordinance and appointments.
3. Legislative competence to enact Sections 9 and 10 of the Ordinance.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Constitutionality of the Ordinance (now Act) and the consequential orders and appointments of the Election Commissioners (ECs):
The President of India promulgated an Ordinance (No.32 of 1993) to amend "The Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners (Condition of Service) Act, 1991" which was published on October 1, 1993. The amendments included changes in the title, definition clauses, salary provisions, and the introduction of new sections (9 and 10) regarding the transaction of business by the Election Commission. The Ordinance became an Act (Act No.4 of 1994) on January 4, 1994. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the Act, stating that the Constitution under Article 324 envisages a multi-member Election Commission. The Court found no merit in the argument that a multi-member body would be unworkable and rejected the contention that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) has superior authority over other ECs.

2. Allegations of mala fides in the issuance of the Ordinance and appointments:
The incumbent CEC alleged that the Ordinance and subsequent appointments of two ECs were made with mala fide intentions to erode his authority and sideline him. The Supreme Court examined these allegations and found no evidence to support the claim of mala fides. The Court noted that the demand for a multi-member Election Commission had been raised by various advisory bodies and political parties over the years. The Court also observed that the CEC's past decisions and public statements had evoked mixed reactions, and the Government's decision to constitute a multi-member Commission was justified and not motivated by malice.

3. Legislative competence to enact Sections 9 and 10 of the Ordinance:
The petitioners argued that Sections 9 and 10 of the Ordinance were ultra vires the Constitution as they were inconsistent with the scheme of Article 324, which did not give Parliament the power to frame rules for the transaction of business of the Election Commission. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the Constitution under Article 324(2) and (5) contemplates a statute for the appointment of ECs and their conditions of service. The Court held that the impugned provisions were incidental to the constitution of a multi-member Commission and were within the legislative competence of Parliament.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Ordinance (now Act 4 of 1994) and the two impugned notifications dated October 1, 1993. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim order dated November 15, 1993, was vacated. The Court emphasized the need for the CEC and ECs to work together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation for the sake of the democratic process.