Supreme Court Refuses To Adjourn Plea Against CJI’s Removal From EC Panel; Calls Matter ‘More Important’

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought an adjournment, citing his engagement before a nine-judge Constitution Bench. However, the Court declined the request, noting that the matter had been scheduled well in advance.

“If you had informed us earlier, we could have accommodated. This matter was fixed a month ago,” Justice Datta remarked, adding that the Court would proceed with the hearing.

Emphasising the importance of the case, the Bench observed, “This matter is more important than any other matter,” and directed that no other cases would be taken up during the day.

The Court asked the petitioners to commence arguments, permitting the Solicitor General to make his submissions at a later stage. It also directed that arguments on behalf of the petitioners be concluded by the following day.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Section 7 of the 2023 Act grants primacy to the executive in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, contrary to the principles laid down in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.

He contended that under the present framework, the selection process is effectively controlled by the Prime Minister and a Union Minister nominated by him, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.

“If the Prime Minister suggests a name, there is no real scope for any alternative,” Hansaria submitted, warning that excessive executive control could erode public confidence in electoral processes.

The Bench questioned whether the Constitution required that the selection process be entirely insulated from the executive. Justice Datta asked whether the Constituent Assembly had envisaged removing the government from the selection mechanism altogether.

Hansaria responded that while Parliament has the power to enact a law, it cannot structure the process in a manner that places complete control in the hands of the executive.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for the petitioners, argued that the 2023 law fails to adhere to the constitutional principles underlying the Anoop Baranwal judgment. He submitted that the earlier ruling established that the executive cannot have exclusive control over appointments.

“The only way to override that judgment was through a constitutional amendment. That has not been done,” he argued, adding that the current law effectively reintroduces executive dominance in a different form.

The Bench, however, observed that the earlier judgment had put in place an interim mechanism to address a legislative vacuum and questioned whether Parliament was bound to replicate that arrangement in subsequent legislation.

The petitions challenge the exclusion of the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, where the role has now been replaced by a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

The hearing remained part-heard, with the Court indicating that it would continue the proceedings tomorrow, i.e. May 7.