Supreme Court Split Verdict
Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Bench Referral For CEC Law
Anonymous
Key Points
1
Justice Dipankar Datta said the petitions had been heard for more than five days and that the Court would have been better served by speaking with one voice in the interest of institutional cohesion, but he ultimately wrote a separate, more detailed opinion after the bench reached different conclusions.
2
The petitioners argue that excluding the CJI could allow the government to appoint its “yes man” and fails to protect free and fair elections, which they say are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
3
The government relied on Article 145(3), arguing through Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the petitions raised substantial constitutional questions warranting consideration by a bench of at least five judges.
4
The legal dispute also concerns Parliament’s authority under Article 324(5) to legislate on the service conditions of election commissioners; the court’s 2023 ruling noted that Parliament had not enacted such a law since Independence before issuing its interim selection-panel directions.
5
Justice Datta stressed that judicial opinions should not be judged only by their effect on the immediate dispute because the Court’s observations could have implications beyond the case, and he warned against treating government as a matter of individuals rather than a system governed by law.
India's Supreme Court handed down a split verdict on September 23, 2026, over whether a law governing Chief Election Commissioner appointments should face a larger bench hearing. Justice Dipankar Datta opposed sending the case up, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma backed the referral, leaving the issue unresolved Tribune India. The 2023 law replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet minister, sparking claims that the move hands too much power to the executive Punjab News Express.
The petitioners—including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Congress leader Jaya Thakur—argue the new setup allows the government to pick a compliant Chief Election Commissioner Courtbook. They contend that removing the CJI as a neutral check threatens free and fair elections, a core part of India's Constitution. The government says Parliament had full authority to change the appointment process under Article 324 of the Constitution Business Upturn.
Why the Supreme Court Couldn't Agree
Justice Datta said the two-judge bench had heard arguments for over five days and should have spoken with one voice on the issue Shillong Times. He worried that splitting the verdict would damage institutional trust. Yet Datta ultimately wrote a separate opinion laying out why he believed the petition did not require a five-judge bench to decide Courtbook. Justice Sharma disagreed, arguing the case raised substantial constitutional questions that only a larger bench could properly resolve.
The 2023 Law Changed the Selection Panel Makeup
Before Parliament acted in December 2023, the Supreme Court had ordered that election commissioners be chosen by a three-member panel: the Prime Minister, the opposition leader in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India Punjab News Express. That panel was meant to last until Parliament passed its own law. The new law swapped out the CJI for a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, creating a two-to-one government advantage Business Upturn. Critics say this shift lets the ruling power install loyal commissioners who won't check electoral abuse.
What Both Judges Ordered Next
Even though they split on whether a larger bench was needed, both judges issued a joint direction Tribune India. They told Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to consider forming a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the petitions. The 2023 law remains in force during this process, meaning the government can appoint new election commissioners under the new two-to-one system Courtbook. The ultimate decision now rests with the Chief Justice, who must decide whether to convene the larger bench that Sharma called for but Datta said was unnecessary.
The Government's Constitutional Argument
Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that Parliament had clear power to shape the appointment process under Article 324(5) of the Constitution Business Upturn. They argued that including judges on an executive selection panel blurs the separation of powers and questioned why only the Chief Election Commission needed a neutral selector. The government stressed that it acted within constitutional limits when it passed the 2023 law, replacing the CJI-led panel with one led by Cabinet members Tribune India.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
56
Articles
25
Reach
81
A
AnonymousAuthor
