New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), with the matter now set to be considered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma differed on whether the pleas should be referred to a larger Bench. Justice Datta did not favour the reference, while Justice Sharma held that the constitutional questions involved warranted consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Despite their differing views, both judges requested Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to consider constituting an appropriate larger Bench to hear the matter.
What Is The CEC Appointment Law Challenge?
The petitions challenge the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law provides for the appointment of the CEC and ECs through a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The legislation replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister on the selection panel. Petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Jaya Thakur, have questioned the constitutional validity of this arrangement.
Why Did The Supreme Court Judges Differ?
Justice Datta and Justice Sharma reached different conclusions on the preliminary question of whether the petitions required consideration by a larger Bench.
Justice Datta observed that the inclusion of a Cabinet minister in the selection panel did not provide what he described as an independent counterweight to the executive. Justice Sharma, meanwhile, held that the constitutional questions raised by the challenge required an authoritative determination by a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3).
The Centre had supported a larger Bench reference, arguing that the petitions raised substantial questions involving Article 324 of the Constitution and Parliament’s authority to frame the appointment mechanism for the Election Commission.
What Happened In The 2023 Anoop Baranwal Case?
The dispute stems from the Supreme Court’s March 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India. A five-judge Constitution Bench had then directed that, until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and ECs should be appointed on the recommendation of a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.
The court had specifically said that this arrangement would continue until Parliament made a law on the subject. Parliament subsequently enacted the 2023 legislation, replacing the CJI on the selection committee with a Union Cabinet minister.
The petitioners have challenged the validity of this legislative change, arguing that the composition of the selection committee raises concerns about the independence of the Election Commission.
What Happens Next In The CEC Appointment Case?
The matter will now be placed before CJI Surya Kant for further directions on the Constitution Bench. The larger Bench will eventually consider the substantive constitutional challenge to the 2023 appointment law.
The law continues to remain in force unless the Supreme Court subsequently rules otherwise. The top court had earlier declined to stay its operation while the challenge was pending.
