New Delhi, Sept. 23 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on whether petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be heard by a larger bench.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on the question of referring the matter to a Constitution Bench. The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the 2023 law that governs the appointment of the CEC and ECs. The law replaced the selection mechanism outlined by the Supreme Court in its 2023 judgment with a statutory panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The Chief Justice of India, who was part of the earlier court-prescribed panel, is not included in the new arrangement. The petitions, including those filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Congress leader Jaya Thakur, argue that removing the CJI from the selection panel affects the independence of the Election Commission and raises questions concerning the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections.
The petitioners have also challenged the law on the ground that it could give the executive greater influence over the appointment process. These are arguments advanced by the petitioners and have not been finally adjudicated. During the proceedings, the Centre argued that the case involves substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution and therefore should be considered by a bench of at least five judges. Article 145(3) provides for a minimum five-judge bench when a case involves a substantial question of constitutional interpretation.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed with the need for a larger bench, holding that the constitutional issues raised by the challenge warranted consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Dipankar Datta, however, did not agree that the matter needed to be referred at this stage. He held that the validity of the law could be examined by the existing two-judge bench. The split verdict does not decide whether the 2023 law itself is constitutionally valid. The immediate issue was whether the challenge should be heard by a larger Constitution Bench.
Following the difference of opinion between the two judges, the matter will now proceed for consideration by a five-judge Constitution Bench. The larger bench will examine the petitions challenging the law governing appointments to the Election Commission. The case stems from the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment, in which it had prescribed a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI until Parliament enacted a law governing the appointment process. Parliament subsequently passed the 2023 legislation establishing the present selection mechanism.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.