The Supreme Court on Wednesday orally observed that the need is for a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) who can even take action against the Prime Minister and also asked the Centre to show the mechanism adopted in the appointment of an Election Commissioner (EC) last week.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph said: “We need a CEC who can even take action against a PM.”

The bench, also comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar, said suppose for example, there is some allegation against the Prime Minister and the CEC has to act, but the the latter is weak-kneed and does not act.

The bench queried the Centre’s counsel that was it not a complete breakdown of the system. The CEC is supposed to be insulated from political influence and should be independent.

It further added that these are aspects on which “you (the Centre’s counsel) must delve into, and why we require an independent larger body for selection and not just Cabinet”.

The bench orally observed that committees say dire need for changes, and politicians also shout from rooftop but nothing happens.

The Centre is represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh.

The bench also queried the Centre’s counsel to show the mechanism adopted in the appointment of the Election Commissioner.

Former Bureaucrat Arun Goel assumed the office of Election Commissioner on Monday, after being appointed to the post on November 19. Since May,this year, the post of one Election Commissioner in the three-member Commission was lying vacant after Sushil Chandra retired as the CEC.

During the hearing, the AG contended that the convention is that all senior bureaucrats and officers at the state and the central government are taken into consideration while appointment and this is scrupulously followed.

The AG further submitted that the appointment is done on the basis of convention and there is no separate appointment procedure of CEC.

He added that one is appointed as EC and then on the basis of seniority a CEC.

Justice Rastogi observed that there should be a transparent mechanism in the appointment of the EC, and the mechanism should be such that people should not question it.

He added that, “you just appointed someone as EC 2 days ago… It should be fresh in memory. Show us (the mechanism applied in the appointment)”.

At this juncture, the AG replied: “So are we saying that there is no confidence in the Council of Ministers?” to which Justice Rastogi said, “no, we are saying for our satisfaction show us the mechanism you adopted in the appointment two days ago”.

The AG replied that he has already shown how a convention is followed, the process involved in the appointment, and appointments are made on the basis of seniority, and on the aspect of recent EC appointment, he added that the office was vacant since May.

“It is not a pick and choose system at alla there is a process,” said the AG.

The bench said it understands that CEC is appointed from amongst the ECs, but then there is no basis, and why is the Centre only confined to civil servants?

The AG said that is a completely different debate, and can we bring in a national pool of candidates, that is a larger debate.

He further added that there is also an in-built guarantee in the system, whenever the President is not satisfied with the suggestion then he can take an action. The hearing in the matter will continue after lunch.

The top court is hearing a batch of pleas seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the CEC.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the CEC heads an institution, though with his truncated tenure, he cannot do anything substantial and added that “silences of the Constitution” is being exploited by all and expressed concern at the absence of a law governing the appointments of ECs and CEC.

Last week, the Centre opposed petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs.

The apex court in October 2018, referred a PIL seeking a collegium-like system for the selection of CECs and ECs to a five-judge Constitution bench.

India with 55,497 requests was once again second only to the US in terms of asking Meta to provide user data in the first half of this year, and the social network restricted access in India to 597 items in response to directions from the IT Ministry in the reporting period.

In the second half of 2021, India had made 50,382 requests to Meta for user data.

According to Meta, the access to 597 items was restricted for violating Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, including content against security of the state and public order.

Meta also restricted six items in response to directions from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for violating Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

“We restricted access in India to 23 items reported by the Election Commission of India relating to electoral complaints under the Indian Penal Code, Representation of the People Act, including spreading candidate misinformation and promoting sectarian violence,” Meta said in its latest transparency report.

Of these, 19 items were restricted only temporarily (during the designated blackout period) in the country.

“We also restricted access to 71 items due to other court orders, to 13 items for IP infringement, and to two items in response to private reports of defamation,” said the company.

As the Centre notified amendments in new IT Rules, 2021 to put more obligations on social media platforms, Meta took down over 30.7 million pieces of bad content across 13 policies for Facebook and over 3 million pieces of such content across 12 policies for Instagram in India in September.

According to Meta, during the first six months of 2022, global government requests for user data increased 10.5 per cent from 214,777 to 237,414.

Of the total volume, the US continues to submit the largest number of requests, followed by India, Germany, Brazil, France and the UK.

“In the US, we received 69,363 requests, which was 15.6 per cent more than the total we received in the second half of 2021,” said Meta.

During this reporting period, the volume of content restrictions based on local law increased globally 75 per cent from 50,959 in the second half of 2021 to 89,368 in the first half of 2022.

“In the first half of 2022, we identified 64 disruptions of Facebook services in 15 countries, compared to 38 disruptions in 12 countries in the second half of 2021,” Meta said.

NEW DELHI, Nov 23: The Supreme Court will have four special benches to conduct proceedings in issues relating to criminal matters, direct and indirect tax matters, land acquisition matters and motor accidents claims tribunal (MACT).
“The Supreme Court will have four special benches for conducting the hearing on issues — criminal matters, direct and indirect tax matters, land acquisition matters and motor accidents claims tribunal — from the next week,” CJI DY Chandrchud said.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud announced this on Wednesday when an advocate mentioned his matter relating to land acquisition for an urgent hearing.
CJI Chandrachud asked the lawyer to mention the matter before the special bench dealing with land acquisition and said that if he is not mistaken, then it may be Justice Surya Kant who will be leading benches dealing with land acquisition issues.
Last week the CJI bench also apprised about a full court meeting decision that each Bench of the top court will take up 10 transfer petitions and 10 bail matters every day to dispose of all such matters before the winter vacation. (Agencies)

New Delhi, November 23

The polygraph test of Aaftab Poonawalla will be conducted on Wednesday at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Rohini.

Official sources said a pre-medical session to gain preliminary information which will be later used to develop diagnostic questions, as well as a scientific session was conducted on Aaftab at the FSL office on Tuesday evening.

“However, the main polygraph test which will involve a questionnaire prepared by the Delhi Police investigators will most likely be taken up on Wednesday.”

Sources said a polygraph and a marco test is imperative in the Shraddha Walkar murder case as Aaftab, during the interrogation, has been deceptive and tried to mislead the interrogators.

The police feel that Aaftab committed the murder with foolproof planning and not in a fit of rage.

A polygraph test, commonly known as a lie detector test, is a procedure in which physiological indicators of a person such as blood pressure, pulse and respiration are recorded while he is answering a series of questions.

On Tuesday, the officials from FSL, as per protocol, also went to the court to verify the order of the copy for the polygraph test.Sources further told IANS that police teams would try to conduct both the tests (polygraph and narco) within four days. IANS