Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, sought a postponement, citing his engagement in another high-profile matter involving a nine-judge bench reviewing issues linked to the Sabarimala temple entry case. However, Justice Dipankar Datta firmly rejected the request, stating that the hearing had been scheduled well in advance and could not be deferred at this stage.
The court emphasized that the case concerning the appointment process of Election Commissioners was of utmost importance. Justice Datta noted that if the request had been made earlier, accommodation might have been possible, but the hearing date had been fixed a month prior. He also pointed out that the proceedings before the nine-judge bench were unlikely to conclude within the next week and advised Mehta to allow his associates to take notes while the petitioners began their arguments.
During the exchange, the bench referred to a newspaper report indicating that the nine-judge bench had observed that the public interest litigation in the Sabarimala matter might not have been appropriate for judicial consideration. The court remarked on the situation, noting that a significant number of judges were occupied with a matter that was itself under scrutiny regarding its admissibility.
The legal challenge traces its roots to a March 2023 Supreme Court ruling which mandated that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. Later that year, the Centre enacted a law altering this composition by excluding the Chief Justice of India and replacing the position with a Union minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Petitions contesting this legislative change argue that the revised selection panel grants the government a dominant role in appointing officials entrusted with ensuring free and fair elections, thereby raising concerns over institutional independence.
Initially, the case was to be heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant. However, in March, the Chief Justice recused himself, citing a potential conflict of interest. During the preliminary hearing, he questioned whether he should preside over the matter, acknowledging that his involvement could invite allegations of bias.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, responded that while no such accusations were likely, it would be appropriate for the Chief Justice to step aside. Accepting this suggestion, the Chief Justice directed that the petitions be listed before a bench comprising judges who are not in line to assume the office of Chief Justice of India in the future. Bhushan concurred with this approach, stating that it aligned with his own considerations.
The Supreme Court’s decision to proceed without delay signals the judiciary’s recognition of the case’s far-reaching implications for the independence and credibility of India’s electoral framework, as it examines whether the amended law undermines the constitutional balance in the appointment of key election authorities.
About The Author
Comment List