New Delhi: The appointment of Gyanesh Kumar (now CEC) and SS Sandhu as election commissioners in 2023 — who were shortlisted, cleared and appointed within a day — were the focus of the hearing on Thursday. Supreme CourtWhat she “wanted” was that the government should show equal promptness in the appointment of judges. Kumar and Sandhu’s appointments were the first by a panel of the PM, a Union Cabinet minister and the LOP under the new law – the CEC and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – the legality of which is being examined by the SC. Asserting that the independence of the EC is as important as the independence of the judiciary, the petitioners argued before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma that the executive and the government should not play a major role in the posting of poll panels, as it would result in the appointment of “yes men”, which would seriously affect the impartiality of the EC, which is the bedrock of the republic and democracy. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for petitioner Jaya Thakur, told the bench that Kumar and Sandhu were appointed without effective consultation. He said the names were not shortlisted till March 13, 2023 and the LoP was given a list of 200 names which were being considered, but the selection committee met and shortlisted six names the very next day. “This is what happens when you give complete power to one person. How can the Leader of the Opposition be expected to look into so many names in a day?” He said.Responding to their plea, the bench said, “We can only say that we want such speed to be shown in the appointment of judges. Especially in the appointment of HC judges.” However, it refused to give credibility to Hansaria’s allegation that he was appointed just a day before the SC hearing on March 15 to sabotage the court proceedings, as no evidence was placed to prove the allegation. Senior advocates Sanjay Parikh, Shadan Farasat and Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the other petitioners, argued that the law was passed by Parliament without proper discussion and when it was passed, 141 opposition MPs were under suspension. He said that this law has been brought to cancel the decision of the Supreme Court by which independence was provided in the appointment process of CEC and Election Commissioners. The 2023 Supreme Court judgment had said that appointments were to be made by a panel comprising the PM, the Leader of the Opposition (LOP) and the CJI, but under the new law, the CJI was replaced by a Union cabinet minister in the committee. Bhushan submitted that every political party in office tried to use the Commission for political gains and that is why a political party while in opposition shouted for freeing the Election Commission from government interference but when it came to office it refrained from taking decisions. He said that the law for the appointment was made only after the intervention of the Supreme Court in 2023. Without naming former Law Minister Arun Jaitley, who once coined the term “tyranny of the unelected” for judiciary activism and interference in policy matters, Justice Dutta said, “I remember an MP who said that the tyranny of the unelected. This should be considered equivalent to tyranny of the elected people.” The bench said, “Whoever comes to office is doing the same thing. It is unfortunate for the country. I watched a BBC video on Dr. Ambedkar. Within three years of the Constitution being made, he had said that democracy is not working in this country.”