State Election Commissioner (SEC) V. Kanagaraj filed counter-affidavit in the High Court on Monday in response to the batch of writ petitions which challenged the validity of A.P. Panchayat Raj (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 through which the term of the office of SEC was reduced from five to three years, and the consequential GOs.
In his counter, Mr. Kanagaraj submitted that the courts would not normally interfere with the adequacy or sufficiency of the material before the Governor for promulgating the ordinance as it was settled law that the satisfaction under Article 213 (1) of the Constitution was subjective in nature.
Therefore, motives could not be attributed to the exercise of the Governor’s powers in issuing the ordinance and the wisdom of his legislative functions cannot be questioned.
He also said the petitioners have no right to plead that a particular person should function as the SEC and the allegation that the ordinance was intended to remove his predecessor was not legally tenable because the State had changed the law related to the qualifications, appointment and tenure of the office of SEC as part of election reforms.
‘Incidents common’
He observed that incidents of prevention of filing of nominations, instances of forcible withdrawal of the nominations, violence and targeting of candidates were not peculiar to the election process.
Mr. Kanagaraj maintained that the competency of the State Legislature in making laws pertaining to the office of SEC could not be described as a colourable exercise of power. Basically, the cessation of the office of the SEC consequent on the change in law does not amount to his or her removal, he contended, adding that he took charge as the SEC after he was appointed in that post as per procedures.
