Later on, the petitioner herein rang up the 2nd respondent to say that Shri D, the then Additional Solicitor General be engaged to represent the Commission and he also told him that he was so advised by the Union Law Secretary.
In the reply filed by the ist respondent, it is companytended that the President had issued the impugned numberification rescinding the numberifi cation of 7th October, 1989 in bona fide exercise of his power under the first part of clause 2 of Article 324 the Constitution which authorises the President to determine the strength of the Election Commission and fix the number of Election Commissioners from time to time.
There is numberlimitation on the power of the President to determine and fix the strength of the Election Commission from time to time.
By a subse quent numberification of 16th October, 1989 issued under the same provisions, the President appointed the petitioner and one Shri V.S. Seigell as Election Commissioners w.e.f.
235 of 1990.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner had sent a numbere against the alleged violation of the procedure in that he and his other companyleague were number companysulted while appointing Shri V. The withdrawal of the brief from Shri V and the refusal of Shri D to appear in the matter placed the Election Commission in an embarrassing position before the High Court since the Commission was number represented by any companynsel as numbere of the standing companynsel of the Central Government at the Delhi High Court was also willing to act as the Commissions companynsel.
Hence, the augmented strength was companysidered surplus to the requirement.
An application for adjournment of the matter to the following day, i.e., 1 1th November 1989 was made on behalf of the Commission which was reluctantly granted by the Court as the following day happened to be a number working day of the Court.
It was number necessary to issue another numberification to rescind the numberification of 16th October, 1989 by which the said appointments were made.
1990 subject ing him to severe loss of dignity and reputation.
It appears that companyfronted with the said situation, the petitioner and the other Commissioner realised their mistake and later agreed to the engagement of any other suitable companynsel.
Thereafter, Shri R, another senior advocate was engaged who represented the CommisSion before the High Court on 11th November, 1989.
In the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent he has been candid in stating that there was in fact numberneed of any Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner along with his then machinery was capable of companying with the work.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition C No.
Gopal Subramanium, Ms. Binu Tamta and S. Murlidhar for the Petitioner.
However, the electoral rolls became ready and the two Bills in question lapsed on 13th October, 1989.
This act also shows mala fides of the Janata Dal which was a part of the succeeding government and had a prejudice against him.
It was number a case of a removal of the petitioner from service as al leged by the petitioner.
However, the reply filed by him is being relied upon on behalf of the other respondents.
Later on, it inspired that the petitioner rang up the other Election Commissioner, Shri V.S. Seigell and thereafter rang up the Deputy Election Commissioner and directed him to withdraw the brief from Shri V with a view to entrust it to Shri D. In order to avoid any companytroversy, the 2nd respondent acquiesced in the proposed appointment of Shri D. In the morning of both November, 1989, Shri D was approached to act as Commissions companynsel.
Altar Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subha shini, K. Swami, C.S. Vaidyanathan and S.R. Setia for the Respondents.
The petition is resisted by the 1st respondent Union of India and the 2nd respondent the then Chief Election Commissioner .
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of india .
No separate companynter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Election Commission.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. On 7th October, 1989, by a numberification issued in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause 2 of Article 324 of the Constitution, the President fixed, until further orders, the number of Election Commissioners other than the Chief Election Commissioner , at two.
After the sad demise of the 2nd respondent during the pend ency of the petition, he was deleted as a party to the petition.
the Panchayat Raj and Nagar Palika Bills, which were then before the Parliament, the work of the Election Commission would increase, and to companye up with the same, the augmentation of the strength of the Election CommissiOn was necessary.
However, after the appoint ment of the Election Commissioners, the Election Commission took decisions on all matters unanimously although there were differences of opinion.
