A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be sent to a larger Constitution bench. The law is being contested chiefly because it removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee and replaced him with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Under the current arrangement the panel consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and that minister, giving the government two of three votes. The Centre had asked the court to refer the petitions to a five-judge bench, arguing they raise substantial questions of constitutional interpretation. Justice Dipankar Datta, who headed the bench, rejected that request and observed prima facie that the 2023 Act does not appear to secure an independent selection process.
He said the Election Commission must not only be independent but also be seen to be independent, since free and fair elections depend on it. Justice Datta remarked that a minister chosen by the Prime Minister cannot realistically be expected to take a position against the head of government, and so fails to act as a neutral counterweight. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed, holding that the case involves a substantial question of law that warrants examination by a larger bench. Because the two judges differed, the matter has been placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant on the administrative side to decide on constituting a bench of appropriate strength. The dispute traces back to the court’s 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment, which ordered that the CJI sit on the selection panel until Parliament legislated on the issue.
The Solicitor General argued that the earlier ruling only filled a legislative vacuum and that Parliament’s subsequent law should now prevail. The verdict lands at a sensitive moment, as opposition parties are already demanding the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner following reports of internal dissent within the poll body. Legal observers say the eventual ruling could reshape how India’s election watchdog is appointed.