# Supreme Court Split on Law Replacing CJI in Election Commissioner Selection Panel, Matter Referred to 5-Judge Bench

> A two-judge Supreme Court bench delivered a split verdict on the 2023 law excluding the CJI from the Election Commission appointment panel, sending the issue to a 5-judge Constitution bench.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Bihar · **Published:** 2026-09-23 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/bihar/chunava-ayukton-ki-chayana-samiti-se-cji-ko-hatane-vale-kanuna-para-supreme-court-men-matabheda-mamala-5-jajon-ki-snvidhana-pitha--37090 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Supreme Court, Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Constitution Bench, Anoop Baranwal Verdict

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.

## What this means for you
This judicial development directly affects the institutional integrity and perceived neutrality of India's electoral machinery.

- **Impact on electoral integrity:** The method of appointing top election officials directly influences the credibility of conduct during national and state elections. The eventual 5-judge Constitution bench ruling will establish whether the judiciary has a formal check on appointments or if the executive holds decisive sway.
- **Voter confidence:** Public trust in democratic voting relies heavily on an independent Election Commission. A definitive constitutional verdict on the selection panel's structure will shape long-term citizen confidence in the fairness of the electoral process.
- **Separation of powers:** The case represents a significant constitutional test regarding the boundary between legislative prerogative and judicial oversight. The outcome will clarify the extent to which parliamentary statutes can alter principles laid down in prior judicial decisions.
- **Future appointments framework:** The upcoming Constitution bench proceedings will determine the binding legal framework for all future appointments to the poll body. Until the matter is settled, the composition of the selection committee remains subject to intense constitutional scrutiny.

## Why this happened
This situation emerged after two Supreme Court judges took opposing views on whether the 2023 election commissioners appointment law should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.

- **Judicial divergence on the bench:** The two judges hearing the challenge could not agree on the referral. While Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the plea to refer the matter to a larger bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma favored sending it to a 5-judge bench, resulting in a split verdict.
- **Enactment of the 2023 statute:** Parliament enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, altering the appointment panel. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
- **Precedent of the Anoop Baranwal ruling:** Earlier in 2023, the Supreme Court in the Anoop Baranwal case had directed that appointments be made by a panel including the CJI as an interim safeguard. Petitioners approached the court arguing that the new law effectively undermined the judicial safeguard by creating an executive-dominated panel.
- **Institutional complexity and judicial pendency:** The fundamental questions involving institutional independence and the basic structure doctrine warranted an authoritative resolution. Justice Datta also highlighted the need to address delays in hearing constitutional matters, recommending the consideration of a permanent Constitution bench.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What verdict did the Supreme Court deliver on the Election Commissioners appointment case?
A two-judge bench delivered a split verdict, resulting in the matter being referred to a 5-judge Constitution bench.

### 2. Which judges constituted the two-judge bench hearing the matter?
The bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

### 3. What was the difference in opinion between the two judges?
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the plea to refer the petitions to a larger bench, whereas Justice Satish Chandra Sharma permitted referring it to a 5-judge Constitution bench.

### 4. Who is included in the selection committee under the 2023 Act?
The committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

### 5. What was the interim arrangement in the 2023 Anoop Baranwal ruling?
The Supreme Court had directed that appointments be made by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India.

### 6. What remark did Justice Dipankar Datta make regarding Constitution benches?
He observed that the CJI should consider constituting a permanent 5-judge Constitution bench to mitigate delays in deciding constitutional cases.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._