Supreme Court delivers split verdict on Centre's demand to send Election Commissioner appointment case to larger bench

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered 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 2023 Act is under challenge for replacing the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister on the selection panel which appoints Election Commissioners. The Central government had requested the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma had reserved its decision on the demand for reference on July 30.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."We heard these petitions for over 5 days, speaking in one voice would have served the voice of institutional cohesion. Unfortunately, we are divided in our opinion. It is a foundational principle of the constitutional scheme that rulers are bound by law and not above it," Justice Datta ruled. 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 to consider whether a Constitution Bench must be formed to decide the issue..Justice Datta observed that it was not enough for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to be independent. It must also appear to be independent, the judge said.He said that the minister on the selection panel nominated by the Prime Minister cannot be expected to defy his own nominator, as the collective responsibility doctrine would preclude him from opposing the Prime Minister. "It is far-fetched to expect that a minister who is part of Cabinet of Ministers would adopt a stand disagreeing with leader or government. Inclusion of cabinet ministers fails to provide an independent counterweight that a neutral selector would," Justice Datta said..Under the 2023 Act, the panel to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister.The petitions challenging the law contend that it violates the constitutional requirement of an independent Election Commission by excluding the Chief Justice of India from the selection process.The challenge stems from the Supreme Court’s 2023 Constitution Bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which had directed that appointments to the Election Commission would be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI, unless a law is enacted in this regard by the parliament..During the hearing of the case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal had merely filled the legislative vacuum. Once a law was enacted, the legislative wisdom should prevail over the temporary judicial verdict, he said.During the hearing, the Court had lamented the failure of successive governments in India to pass a law to ensure the independent functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI). It had also observed that two members on the panel selecting Election Commissioners are on the side of the government and only one member remains on the other side..The petitioners in the case were represented by Senior Advocates Vijay Hansaria, Sanjay Parikh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Shadan Farasat and advocates Prashant Bhushan, Kaleeswaram Raj and Aashay Shukla.The Central Government and ECI were represented by Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Raghvendra P Shankar. .[Read Live Coverage].[Read Judgment].Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India & Anr.