NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on whether petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a Constitution Bench.
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the plea, holding that a Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case had already settled the relevant constitutional principles concerning free and fair elections and the need to insulate the Election Commission of India (ECI) from exclusive executive control in appointments.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed, holding that the challenge raises a substantial constitutional question that has not been conclusively addressed by an earlier judgment. He favoured reference to a Constitution Bench to examine whether Parliament was justified in replacing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the selection committee.
The committee under the 2023 law comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
In view of the difference of opinion, the two-judge Bench directed that the matter be placed before CJI Surya Kant to consider whether a Constitution Bench should be constituted. The petitions challenge the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which replaced the CJI with the nominated Union Cabinet Minister.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India had directed that appointments to the poll body be made on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI. Parliament later enacted the 2023 law replacing the CJI with the nominated minister. (IANS)
Also Read: Gyanesh Kumar has lost administrative, moral right to continue as CEC: Congress