Editorial 1. SC verdict on ECI appointment
Recent Context:
- Recently, A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a high-power committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India must pick the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
- This is a very significant judgment that seeks to change the way in which India’s top election officials are appointed, and can potentially have far-reaching implications. As of now, the central government essentially has a free hand in appointing these officials.
- The Bench headed by Justice K M Joseph ruled on a batch of petitions seeking a selection process similar to what is followed in the case of the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
What was the plea before the Supreme Court?
- A first PIL had been filed in 2015, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second PIL on the issue filed in 2018 by social activist Ashwini Upadhyaya
- As a result, court referred the issues to a Constitution Bench.
How are the CEC and ECs currently appointed?
- There are just five Articles (324-329) in Part XV (Elections) of the Constitution. Article 324 of the Constitution vests the “superintendence, direction and control of elections” in an Election Commission consisting “of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix”.
- The Constitution does not lay down a specific legislative process for the appointment of the CEC and ECs. The President makes the appointment on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.
What are the powers of the Election Commission?
- The Constitution of India gave the Election Commission sweeping powers without going into the specifics.
- Introducing this provision in the Constituent Assembly on June 15, 1949, Babasaheb Ambedkar had said “the whole election machinery should be in the hands of a Central Election Commission, which alone would be entitled to issue directives to returning officers, polling officers and others”.
- Parliament subsequently enacted The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and The Representation of the People Act, 1951 to define and enlarge the powers of the Commission.
- The SC said Article 324 “is a plenary provision vesting the whole responsibility for national and State elections” in the ECI “and, therefore, the necessary powers to discharge that function”.
Was the Election Commission always a three-member body?
- No. For almost four decades of the republic, until 1989, the Election Commission was a single-member body, with only a Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).
- The Election Commission was expanded just ahead of the elections to the ninth Lok Sabha in an atmosphere of friction between the Rajiv Gandhi government and then CEC R V S Peri Sastri.
- So on October 7, 1989, President R Venkataraman, in the exercise of his powers under Article 324(2), issued a notification creating two positions in the Election Commission in addition to that of the CEC. On October 16, 1989, the government appointed S S Dhanoa and V S Seigell to these posts.
- The V P Singh government then enacted the aforementioned Act of 1991, which gave the CEC a status equal to that of a Supreme Court judge, and his retirement age was fixed at 65 years.
- The ECs were given the status of High Court judges, and their retirement age was fixed at 62 years. The passage of the EC Act essentially meant that if and when the Election Commission became a multi-member body again, the CEC would act as its chairman, and the ECs would be junior to him.
- government brought an Ordinance to amend the EC Act, and made the CEC and the ECs equal by giving all three the status of a Supreme Court judge, retiring at the age of 65 years.
- Currently, all three Commissioners now had equal decision-making powers. The amendment also introduced sections that envisaged that the CEC and the ECs would act unanimously and, in case there was a difference of opinion on any issue, the majority view would prevail.
Significance of current Judgement:
- The functional autonomy of the CEC and the EC has a direct link with the process by which they are selected.
- As stated by the Court, “a vulnerable Election Commission would result in an insidious situation and detract from its efficient functioning.”
- The SC’s verdict, apart from ensuring fairness in the process, can act as a constitutional lesson in India’s troubled times.
- It found that in India, there is “an unrelenting abuse of the electoral process”. The judgment recognises the fine distinction between conventional democracy and constitutional democracy. In the former, the majority alone matters. In the latter, it is the Constitution that matters.
- In the judgment, the country finds an activist judiciary after a long time. This revival of judicial activism is well supported by legal reasoning and binding precedents.
- It has come out during a dark phase of majoritarianism with an aggrandising executive. This adds to the intrinsic value of the judgment.
Conclusion:
- Free and fair election is soul of vibrant democracy and election commission has a significant role for conducting the election in transparent manner.
- Therefore, it becomes necessary that independency and autonomy of Election commission and Election commissioners are maintained as per the court order and led to removal of perceptions of biasedness that the Commission works in favour of the ruling party.
Editorial 2. Fossil fuels firms failed to curb methane emission: What IEA’s annual report says
Recent Context:
- According to recently published, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual Methane Global Tracker report, fossil fuel companies emitted 120 million metric tonnes of methane into the atmosphere in 2022, only slightly below the record highs seen in 2019.
- It added that these companies have done almost nothing to curb the emissions despite their pledges to find and fix leaking infrastructure.
- The report said 75 per cent of methane emissions from the energy sector can be reduced with the help of cheap and readily available technology.
- The implementation of such measures would cost less than three per cent of the net income received by the oil and gas industry in 2022, but fossil fuel companies failed to take any substantial action regarding the issue.
What are the sources of Methane emission
- Methane is emitted from a variety of anthropogenic (human-influenced) and natural sources.
- Anthropogenic emission sources include landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial processes
What are the findings of the report?
- The energy sector accounts for around 40 per cent of the total average methane emissions from human activity, as oil and natural gas companies are known to release methane into the atmosphere when natural gas is flared or vented.
- The greenhouse gas is also released through leaks from valves and other equipment during the drilling, extraction and transportation process.
- The report said. That “More than 260 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas (mostly composed of methane) is wasted through flaring and methane leaks globally today
- Although it’s impossible to avoid all of this amount, the right policies and implementation can bring 200 bcm of additional gas to markets.
What steps can be taken to curb Methane as per the Report:
- The report pointed out that “In the oil and gas sector, emissions can be reduced by over 75 per cent by implementing well-known measures such as leak detection and repair programmes and upgrading leaky equipment,”
- It further mentioned that 80 per cent of the available options to curb the release of methane could be implemented by the fossil fuel industry at net zero cost.
- Based on average natural gas prices from 2017 to 2021, report estimated that around 40 per cent of methane emissions from oil and gas operations could be avoided at no net cost because the outlays for the abatement measures are less than the market value of the additional gas that is captured,”
Potential positive outcomes due to reduction of wastage of natural gas ?
- Ultimately, reducing 75 per cent of the wastage of natural gas could lower global temperature rise by nearly 0.1 degree Celsius by mid-century.
- This would have the same effect on the soaring global temperatures as immediately stopping greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles such as cars, trucks, buses and two- and three-wheeler vehicles across the world.
- However, fossil fuel companies have done little to tackle the problem.
How are methane emissions driving climate change?
- Methane is a greenhouse gas, which is responsible for 30 per cent of the warming since preindustrial times, second only to carbon dioxide.
- A report by the United Nations Environment Programme observed that over a 20-year period, methane is 80 times more potent at warming than carbon dioxide.
- In recent years, scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm regarding the increasing amount of methane in the atmosphere.
- Last year, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that the atmospheric levels of methane jumped 17 parts per billion in 2021, beating the previous record set in 2020.
Conclusion:
- Fossil fuel producers need to step up and policymakers need to step in framing the policy which curb the GHGs emission and also need fix leaking gas infrastructure.
- AS Methane has higher Greenhouse gas potential than carbon dioxide, so despite being living in atmosphere for short duration it impacts the global warming in higher proportion.
- However, Global Methane Tracker shows that some progress is being made but that emissions are still far too high and not falling fast enough especially as methane cuts are among the cheapest options to limit near-term global warming.
