Indian Supreme Court dispute over election appointment law

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has reached a deadlock over whether to refer petitions challenging a 2023 law to a five-judge constitutional bench. The law altered the selection process for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners by replacing the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet Minister.

Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued split opinions. Justice Datta argued that the current process lacks the appearance of impartiality, suggesting the inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition is “tokenistic” because a Cabinet Minister is unlikely to dissent from the government. Justice Sharma maintained that the matter should be decided by a larger bench.

Following this disagreement, the justices requested that the Chief Justice of India consider establishing a permanent five-judge constitution bench. The justices expressed “grave concern” regarding delays in resolving references to larger benches, describing the wait times as a “source of institutional embarrassment.”

Recent developments confirm the deadlock persists. Petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and others contend that the current appointment mechanism threatens the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission, which is considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The dispute remains centered on whether the existing selection committee can ensure an independent electoral body.