The Supreme Court will hear next month a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of a law excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the high-level committee for appointment of chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (ECs).
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Vipul M Pancholi listed the petitions for hearing on May 6 after the matter was released by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant last month apprehending a possible “conflict of interest” owing to his position as CJI.
The petitions filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Congress leader Jaya Thakur among others challenges the validity of the CEC and other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. According to them, the Act which excludes CJI from the selection panel fails to preserve free and fair elections which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petitions claim that the law violates a Constitution bench decision of the top court in the Anoop Baranwal case (2023) which laid down that CEC and ECs will be selected by a high-level committee headed by the Prime Minister and comprising the CJI and the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The apex court’s judgment was to hold the field till Parliament enacted a law. However, the 2023 Act replaced CJI in the committee with a cabinet minister to be nominated by the PM, virtually giving the government a clear majority in selecting CEC and ECs. The court had earlier turned down requests by the petitioners to stay the law.
{{/usCountry}}The apex court’s judgment was to hold the field till Parliament enacted a law. However, the 2023 Act replaced CJI in the committee with a cabinet minister to be nominated by the PM, virtually giving the government a clear majority in selecting CEC and ECs. The court had earlier turned down requests by the petitioners to stay the law.
{{/usCountry}}One of the petitions in the batch even challenged the appointment of the present CEC and ECs as per the Act under challenge. The court questioned why individuals have been named in the petition as they have been appointed as per law.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for one of the petitioners said that the court has to consider the Baranwal case and other judgments of the top court, all by Constitution benches, which emphasise the need for making such appointments transparent and fair.
The court agreed to allot an entire day for hearing the petitioners and asked the Centre and the Election Commission of India to file any documents required for the hearing of the case.