Delay in deciding Constitutional cases: Supreme Court urges CJI to constitute permanent 5-judge Constitution Bench

The Court made the observation while delivering a split verdict on the Union government's demand to refer the Election Commissioners appointment case to a larger bench.

Constitution Bench Supreme Court

Published on:

23 Sep 2026, 9:25 am

2 min read

Listen to this article

Constitutional cases referred to larger benches remain pending for years and is an area of great concern, the Supreme Court candidly acknowledged on Wednesday as it urged the Chief Justice of India to constitute a permanent 5-judge bench to hear and decide Constitutional cases.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while delivering a split verdict on the Union government's demand to refer the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a larger bench.

The petitioners before the Court had opposed the Centre's request citing delay by the Supreme Court in deciding larger bench matters.

Such an apprehension was not unfounded, the Court today said.

"The petitioners seems to be justified in saying reference remain pending for years. Undisputedly this is an area of great concern. Self-introspection indeed is required. We request CJI to consider appointment a permanent 5 judge bench for deciding constitutional cases," the bench said.

Self-introspection indeed is required. We request CJI to consider appointment a permanent 5 judge bench for deciding constitutional cases.

Supreme Court

The 2023 Act came to be challenged before the apex court for replacing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister on the selection panel which appoints Election Commissioners.

Union government had requested the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma today delivered a split verdict on the issue.

Justice Datta rejected the government's request for reference. He went on to deliver a prima facie opinion on the challenge to the 2023 Act.

Justice Sharma disagreed with the observations made by Justice Datta. He said that a substantial question of law was involved in the matter which must be decided by a larger bench.

In view of the difference in opinion, the bench ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for considering the desirability of constituting a Constitution Bench to decide the vires.