SC reserves order on referring matter of appointment of CEC, ECs to larger bench
New Delhi, July 30
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on whether the pleas challenging the validity of the 2023 law relating to the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, which dropped the CJI from the selection panel for Election Commissioners, should be referred to a larger five-judge bench.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma asked the Centre and petitioners to file written submissions in this regard.
The bench said, "We are reserving judgment on the reference. You can provide your written arguments."
The apex court was hearing arguments on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which excludes the CJI from the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners.
In 2024, the apex court had declined to put on hold the two Election Commissioners' appointment under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The pleas were filed in the apex court seeking a stay on the Act by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Jaya Thakur (General Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee), Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram, Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha, and advocate Gopal Singh.
The petitions stated that the provisions of the enactment are violative of the principle of free and fair elections since it does not provide an "independent mechanism" for appointment of the members of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The petitions said the Act excludes the Chief Justice of India from the process of appointment of the members of ECI and it's in violation of the March 2, 2023 verdict of the top court which had ordered that the appointment of members of the ECI be done on the advice of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha till a law is made by the Parliament.
By excluding the CJI from the process, the judgement of the Supreme Court stands diluted as the Prime Minister, and his nominee, will always be "the deciding factor" in the appointments, said the petitions.
The petitions in particular challenged Sections 7 and 8 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provisions lay down the procedure for the appointment of ECI members.
They sought direction to the Centre to include the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee for the appointment of the CEC and ECs, which currently comprises of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The Act replaced the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991.
— ANI
Reader Comments
As someone who follows Indian politics closely, this is a big deal. The SC's earlier judgment was clear—CJI must be part of the panel. Now they've changed the law to drop him. It's like the government wants to control who runs elections. 😠
I'm not a lawyer but even I can see the problem here. If the PM and his nominee have the final say, what's the point of having an Election Commission that's independent? 😒 The 2023 Act needs to be struck down or at least the bench should refer it to a larger bench for proper review.
Honestly, I understand the concerns but the government might have a point—why should the judiciary be involved in executive appointments? However, given the importance of free and fair elections, the CJI's presence adds credibility. Let's see what the larger bench decides.
This is textbook separation of powers drama. India's SC was right in 2023 to include the CJI. Now the govt is trying to bypass that with a new law. 🙄 Let's hope the judiciary holds its ground—otherwise, the election body becomes a rubber stamp.
I appreciate the SC reserving judgment—it shows they're not rushing. But the fact that ADR and others had to file pleas shows how fragile our democratic safeguards are. The CJI must be in the panel, period. Otherwise, it's just the executive appointing its own watchdogs. 😐
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.