Supreme Court Says Judges Should Be Appointed As Fast As Election Commissioners During EC Law Challenge

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was examining the constitutional validity of the law, under which Election Commissioners are appointed by a selection panel consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the recent appointments of Election Commissioners were carried out in undue haste and without meaningful consultation with the Leader of Opposition.

He submitted that in 2024, when an application seeking to restrain appointments under the new regime was pending, the Union proceeded swiftly to make appointments. According to him, on March 13, 2024, the Opposition Leader was given a list of 200 shortlisted candidates, and the very next day the selection committee met and appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu as Election Commissioners. “This is what happens when you give absolute power to one individual. How can the Leader of Opposition examine so many names in one day?” Hansaria argued.

At this stage, Justice Datta remarked orally that if such speed is possible, “we wish such speed is shown in the appointment of judges, especially High Court judges.”

The bench, however, was not inclined to accept the argument that the appointments were hurriedly made to pre-empt judicial scrutiny of a pending application. Justice Datta questioned the basis of attributing motive to the Union government, observing that there was no material to show that the Centre was aware of the scheduled hearing date of March 15.

“Can you attribute any motive without showing us that the Union knew about the 15th being the date? When you want us to declare that something was activated by motive, you need to satisfy us,” the bench observed.

When the petitioner’s side conceded that there was no such material, the Court suggested not pressing that line of argument.

Hansaria clarified that the challenge was not to any individual appointments but to the constitutional validity of the statute governing the selection process itself.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, responded that the verification page was blank and submitted, “It happens sometimes.”

"This is our experience in the Supreme Court. It doesn’t happen in the High Court,” Justice Datta observed, expressing displeasure over the defect in the petition. The Bench further remarked, “Yesterday we refused to adjourn saying this matter is important, and now this is what is happening.”

The Court clarified that while it was not inclined to reject the petition solely on the procedural defect, responsibility for pleadings filed before the apex court could not be diluted. “We are not saying we will not entertain it on this ground, but this defect has to be cured. Somebody has to take responsibility for the statements made,” Justice Datta said.

Bhushan informed the Court that the defect was curable and would be corrected during the day itself. He also explained that the person who was supposed to verify the petition had passed away.