The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to accept the Centre’s request to postpone hearings on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law governing the appointment of election commissioners. The court indicated that the matter required urgent attention and signalled that the challenge concerning the independence and appointment process of the Election Commission would be heard on priority.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea for adjournment made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Centre had sought postponement on the ground that Mehta was simultaneously appearing before a separate nine-judge Constitution bench dealing with major constitutional questions relating to religious freedoms, including issues connected to the Sabarimala Temple temple entry matter.
However, the Supreme Court bench declined to defer the proceedings and observed that the issue concerning the appointment process of election commissioners was of greater significance. Justice Dipankar Datta remarked that the court could not indefinitely delay hearing such an important constitutional challenge merely because the law officer was occupied elsewhere. He stated that associates of the Solicitor General could remain present, take notes during arguments, and assist later when the Centre presents its response.
The bench also directed the petitioners to conclude their submissions by Thursday, while allowing the Centre to respond at a later stage. During the hearing, Justice Datta made a strong observation stating that the matter before the court was “more important than any other matter.” He further commented that while all cases are important, the court had also seen public observations questioning whether the Sabarimala public interest litigation should have been entertained in the first place despite occupying the attention of a nine-judge bench.
The court’s remarks highlighted its concern regarding the constitutional implications of the law governing appointments to the Election Commission. During proceedings, the bench also asked petitioners to submit a list of constitutional and statutory bodies where the presence of the Chief Justice of India in appointment panels is considered necessary to ensure transparency, neutrality, and fairness in the selection process.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing on behalf of petitioner and Congress leader Jaya Thakur, informed the court that such details had already been included in the petitions. However, he assured the bench that a separate compilation containing the relevant examples and legal references would be submitted before the court for clarity.
The petitions before the Supreme Court challenge the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The controversial aspect of the law is that it removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee responsible for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
Under the present law enacted by Parliament, the selection committee now consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the single largest opposition party in the House. Petitioners have argued that this composition effectively gives the executive overwhelming influence in the appointment process.
The legislation was passed in December 2023, only months after a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had delivered a landmark judgment stating that appointments to the Election Commission should temporarily be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law on the issue.
Petitioners, including Jaya Thakur and Association for Democratic Reforms, have argued that excluding the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel weakens the institutional independence and neutrality of the Election Commission. According to them, judicial participation in the process acts as an important constitutional safeguard against excessive executive control over electoral institutions.
The Centre, however, has defended the law and maintained that the independence of the Election Commission does not depend on the inclusion of a judicial member in the appointment process. The government has argued that Parliament has the constitutional authority to determine the structure of the selection committee through legislation.
In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court had refused to stay appointments made under the 2023 law. The Centre had also rejected allegations that the appointment of two Election Commissioners in March 2024 was hurriedly carried out to avoid possible judicial scrutiny before the ongoing constitutional challenge could be decided.
The case had earlier witnessed another important development when Chief Justice Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the matter. Explaining the decision, the Chief Justice had stated in court that hearing the matter could create a perception of conflict of interest because the position of the Chief Justice of India itself formed part of the dispute relating to the composition of the selection committee.
The ongoing proceedings are now being closely watched because the final verdict could have major implications for the independence of the Election Commission, the balance of power between the executive and judiciary, and the constitutional framework governing appointments to one of India’s most important democratic institutions.
