Today, the Supreme Court rejected a plea challenging the appointment of bureaucrat Arun Goel as election commissioner.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said that the Constitution bench of the Supreme court had already examined the issue in its verdict dated March 2.

Further, the bench said that the "five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice KM Joseph had perused the file of Goel's appointment but had refused to quash it even though it had made certain observations.''

The division bench refused the entertain the plea filed by the NGO Association of Democratic Reforms. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, counsel the NGO, submitted that Goel’s appointment was arbitrary as due process was not followed.

On the contrary, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the NGO cannot be allowed to have a second bite to the cherry as the Constitution bench has perused the file of appointment but refused to quash it.

The Constitution bench of the Top Court said the court was mystified as to how Goel applied for voluntary retirement on November 18 last year if he was not aware about the proposal to appoint him as an election commissioner.

The top court noted that a vacancy in the post of election commissioner arose upon the appointment of Rajiv Kumar as the Chief Election Commissioner with effect from May 15, 2022.

The top court had asked how the Union law minister short-listed a panel of four names that was recommended to the prime minister for appointment as election commissioner, when none of them would have completed the stipulated six-year tenure in office.

The apex court said the appointment to the post of election commissioner was made apparently on the basis that there was no hindrance to the making of the appointment as there was no specific law.

It had earlier questioned the "haste" and "tearing hurry" with which the Centre appointed Goel as an election commissioner, saying his file travelled at "lightning speed" within departments in 24 hours.

The Centre had vehemently resisted the observations, with Attorney General R Venkataramani contending the whole issue pertaining to his appointment needed to be looked at in entirety.