The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 6) turned down the Centre’s request to adjourn the hearing of the petitions challenging the law- Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023- to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
The request was made by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, stating that he was occupied with the hearing of the Sabarimala case. However, it failed to convince the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, with Justice Dutta referring to media reports claiming that the nine-judge bench had observed that the PIL seeking the entry of women in Sabarimala should not have been entertained in the first place.
Bench rejects adjournment plea
“Let your associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspaper that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place,” Justice Datta told the Solicitor General as quoted by Live Law.
Also Read: SC rebukes lawyers’ body over Sabarimala PIL: ‘Are you country’s chief priest?’
“This matter is more important than any other matter,” added Justice Dutta.
The bench further stated that the petitioners may commence their argument today, and the Centre may commence its argument another day.
CJI recusal and earlier ruling
Earlier, on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. “I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest,” the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
Also Read: SC slams misuse of PILs, calls them ‘Private, Publicity, Paisa, Political Interest Litigations’
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
Challenge to selection panel
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Also Read: SC finds no cognisable offence in hate speech case against Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
Centre’s defence in court
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner’s claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to “pre-empt” the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
(With agency inputs)
Comments are closed.