A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on Wednesday on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. With the two judges differing on whether the matter warranted an examination by a larger bench, the petitions have now been referred to a 5-judge Constitution bench. At the heart of the challenge is the exclusion of the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee, replacing the judicial member with a Union Cabinet Minister.
Judicial Divide in the Two-Judge Bench
The petitions were heard by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The core procedural question before the bench was whether the legal challenges raised against the constitutional validity of the 2023 statutory enactment required adjudication by an authoritative 5-judge Constitution bench.
The two judges arrived at divergent conclusions. Justice Dipankar Datta declined the plea to refer the matter to a larger bench. Conversely, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma favoured sending the legal challenge to a 5-judge Constitution bench for authoritative consideration. Owing to this divergence of opinion, the bench issued a split verdict, resulting in the matter being placed before a 5-judge Constitution bench to determine the constitutional standing of the statute.
The Core Controversy Around the 2023 Act
The legal dispute centers on the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under the provisions of this legislation, the selection committee responsible for recommending candidates consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated directly by the Prime Minister.
This statutory composition superseded the interim arrangement laid down by the Supreme Court in the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment. In that ruling, the apex court had mandated a tripartite committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law. The subsequent 2023 legislation altered that balance by replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister, giving the executive a numerical majority on the panel and prompting multiple legal challenges.
Remarks on a Permanent Constitution Bench
During the course of the hearings, Justice Dipankar Datta had also observed that the Chief Justice of India ought to consider constituting a permanent 5-judge Constitution bench to tackle persistent delays in adjudicating constitutional matters. The context of that observation surfaced during the delivery of Wednesday's verdict. The newly designated 5-judge Constitution bench will now take up the petitions to examine the constitutional questions surrounding the 2023 enactment and the autonomy of the election watchdog.
