On Thursday, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court inquired as to the criteria behind the Law Minister's shortlisting of four names that were recommended to the Prime Minister for his approval for the appointment as Election Commissioner.

The petitioner's counsel, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, informed the Court that Goel was granted a Voluntary Retirement from Service on Thursday and that his appointment was notified within two days.

The bench was intrigued by the appointment made within a day after reviewing the files produced by the Attorney General of India today. It also questioned Attorney General of India R Venkataramani about the appointment of someone whose tenure would not last the mandatory six years.

Justice KM Joseph, the presiding judge of the bench, asked: "We don't have anything against an individual. This man, in fact, is excellent in terms of academic. But we are concerned with the structure of the appointment. On 18th we hear the case, on same day you move the file, on same day PM says I recommend his name. Why this urgency...It says based on the list maintained, there are 4 names that you have recommended. I want to understand that out of vast reservoir of names, how do you actually select a name...Someone who was about to be superannuated in December. He is the youngest among the 4 names who were recommended. Is that a criteria? How did you select?", 

The Judge continued, "AG, you said that there are no other officers in the same category as the one who is appointed recently. However, there are several such names from the same cadre itself. We can read out the list. We want to know how do you come to a name...Now there are younger people also on the database. We want to know from you that what is the mechanism that you adopted to filter someone who is from this age factor, etc."

Case Title: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

Citation: WP(C) No. 104/2015

Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/1458/1458_2015_4_501_39985_Order_23-Nov-2022.pdf