The Supreme Court on Wednesday began hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law that removed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the committee responsible for appointing election commissioners.
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma questioned whether courts could compel Parliament to legislate in a particular manner, observing that law-making remained within Parliament’s domain.
During the proceedings, the Bench remarked that the arrangement evolved by the Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, which included the CJI in the appointment panel, operated only until Parliament enacted a law on the subject.
“The Court had laid down norms to operate till a law was framed. Once legislation exists, can it be argued that those norms are not being followed?” the Bench asked.
Appearing for petitioner and Congress leader Jaya Thakur, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria argued that the constitutional principle emerging from the Anoop Baranwal ruling was that appointments to the Election Commission could not remain solely under executive control.
He submitted that the 2023 legislation violated Article 14 because it failed to create an independent appointment mechanism.
The petitions challenge the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which the selection committee comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. According to the petitioners, the structure effectively ensures executive dominance in appointments.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought adjournment, citing his engagement before a nine-judge Bench hearing the Sabarimala reference matter.
The Court declined the request, stressing that the case had been listed well in advance and describing it as “more important than any other matter.”
Hansaria argued that the Constituent Assembly Debates reflected an intention that appointments to the Election Commission should remain insulated from governmental influence. Referring to the functioning of the current law, he contended that the Leader of Opposition was merely presented with a large pool of names without any meaningful role in selection.
The Bench also asked whether the Justice MN Venkatachaliah Committee had specifically recommended inclusion of the CJI in the selection panel. Hansaria replied that while the committee may not have expressly suggested that arrangement, its underlying concern was to prevent complete executive control.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for another petitioner, argued that Parliament could not enact a law granting the executive exclusive dominance in appointments without first amending the Constitution.
According to him, the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal had conclusively held that appointments to the Election Commission could not remain exclusively within executive control.
The hearing will continue on Thursday.
Source link
#questions #courts #direct #Parliament #panel #law
