"Not part of alliance": Owaisi distances AIMIM from INDIA bloc protest in Delhi, demands amendment to CEC appointment law

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Tuesday reiterated his demand for the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the panel appointing the Chief Election Commissioner, calling the current selection process the “biggest problem.”

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi on Tuesday reiterated his demand for the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the panel appointing the Chief Election Commissioner, calling the current selection process the “biggest problem.” As per the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Condition of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the selection committee comprises of the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.

Speaking to reporters in Hyderabad, Owaisi noted that he did not join the INDIA bloc’s protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi as AIMIM is not part of the alliance. Owaisi said, "I did not go there because I am not a part of that (alliance). Begani shaadi mein mera kya kaam? The process for the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner, which is wrong. It is completely in favour of the executive. The process needs to be changed. Selection of the Chief Election Commissioner is the biggest problem. That is wrong; that has to be corrected.”

He again termed the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls as “NRC through the backdoor.” “Even during the SIR process in Bihar, I had spoken up. I demand that the law for selection of CEC be changed. Have CJI, PM and LoP make the selection. This SIR is wrong. I believe that SIR is an NRC through the backdoor,” he said.

Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on whether pleas challenging the validity of the 2023 law relating to the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, which dropped the CJI from the selection panel, should be referred to a larger five-judge bench. A division bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on the question. While Justice Datta rejected the plea for reference to a larger bench, Justice Sharma held that the issue warranted consideration by a Constitution bench.

The bench, however, unanimously directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for considering the constitution of a Constitution bench of appropriate strength, observing that referring the question first to a three-judge bench would unnecessarily delay the proceedings. (ANI)