SC defers hearing on pleas challenging law that excludes CJI from Election Commissioners’ selection panel

The Supreme Court on Tuesday postponed the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which omits the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the committee for the selection of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said the matter could not be taken up due to a lack of time and will now be heard on November 11.

Advertisement

During the brief proceedings, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), pointed out that the case had been listed several times but had yet to be heard. Justice Kant observed that the petitioners may mention the matter again on the morning of November 11 so that the Bench can take it up by deferring less urgent matters that day.

The petitions—filed by ADR, Jaya Thakur (General Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress), Sanjay Narayanrao Meshram, Dharmendra Singh Kushwaha, and advocate Gopal Singh—contend that the 2023 law compromises the independence of the Election Commission and violates the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections.

Replacing the 1991 Election Commission Act, the 2023 law overrides the Supreme Court’s March 2, 2023, Constitution Bench ruling, which had directed that the CJI be part of the selection panel until Parliament enacted a law. Under the new act, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

According to the petitioners, removing the CJI and substituting him with a Cabinet Minister gives the executive an overwhelming position over appointments, undermining the autonomy of the Election Commission and weakening the Court’s earlier directive meant to safeguard its independence.

The Supreme Court had earlier, in 2024, refused to stay the implementation of the law but agreed to examine its constitutional soundness, which remains pending.