‘More important than anything else’: SC refuses to postpone hearing on Election Commission appointments law

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to postpone the hearing on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Election Commissioners Appointment Act, 2023, making it clear that the issue is “more important than any other”.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea of ​​Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who sought an adjournment on matters related to religious freedom, including the Sabarimala temple issue, before the nine-judge Constitution bench.In rejecting the plea, Judge Datta stressed the importance of the matter, saying: “This matter is more important than anything else.” Commenting further on the priority of the cases, he said, “We read in the newspapers that there was an opinion that the court should not entertain Sabarimala’s PIL. So, with all due respect, nine judges are busy with a case that should never have been entertained.“The bench allowed the petitioners to begin arguments and directed them to complete their submissions by Thursday, indicating that the Center would be heard later.Central to the proceedings is the Chief Electoral Commissioner and Other Electoral Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure of Office) Act, 2023. The law changed the composition of the selection committee, removed the Chief Justice of India and replaced the post with a union minister nominated by the prime minister.During the hearing, the Supreme Court also raised a fundamental constitutional question whether Parliament can be directed to enact a law to govern the appointment of the Chief Electoral Commissioner (CEC) and the Election Commissioner.Justice Dipankar Datta pointed to one of the prayers in the petition seeking such a direction and questioned its sustainability. “Coming back to the prayer… it has asked Parliament to make a law. Can the courts ask Parliament to make a law? Can this be maintained?” he asked.The bench, in its verdict in the Anoop Baranwal case on March 2, 2023, examined the issue and the Constitution Bench prescribed setting up of a three-member selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India as an interim mechanism.Justice Datta stressed that the ruling was intended as an interim arrangement to address the legislative vacuum. “Why did the court limit the Anoop Baranwal judgment to a specific period before the law was enacted? It was just to deal with the specific situation of a vacuum,” he remarked.He further questioned whether the court’s detailed observations in that judgment could be considered binding on Parliament in making the law. “Are these opinions, which are over 300 pages, not justifications for the law made by the court in a short period of time before it was enacted? Can you say that the law must also follow these opinions?” he said, adding that the judiciary cannot empower Parliament to legislate in a particular manner.Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, while opening arguments for the petitioners, argued that the 2023 law gives undue dominance to the executive branch in the selection process. Talking about the composition of the panel, he said the structure, which comprised the prime minister, federal ministers and the leader of the opposition, effectively created a “2-1” majority for the government.He described this as granting “primacy” to the executive and warned it could reduce the electoral body to a “pocket committee” capable of appointing “the Prime Minister’s choice”. Hansaria stressed that the current government is directly tied to the election results and therefore cannot have exclusive control over appointments.He cited the debates at the Constitutional Convention as its clear intention to ensure that elections were conducted by an independent body “out of the hands of the government of the day”.Responding to the judge’s suggestion that the 2023 ruling was only a stopgap measure, Hansaria insisted that while Parliament has the power to legislate, any such law must maintain institutional independence and cannot transfer effective control to the executive.The arguments also touch on public confidence in the electoral commission, with Hansaria referring to the criticism poll authorities have faced recently.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta refuted this reasoning, saying the argument was flawed. “If there are abusive remarks against judges, should we abolish the collegiate system? What kind of argument is that?” he asked.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for the petitioners, argued that the principles laid down in the Balanwal judgment – particularly the restriction on executive control – cannot be overridden by common law and require a constitutional amendment.The challenge stems from an earlier Constitutional Court ruling in March 2023 that appointments to the Election Commission would be made by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, an arrangement intended to remain in effect until a law is enacted by Parliament.The petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, argued that excluding the judiciary from the electoral process would compromise the independence of the Election Commission.Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant, who had recused himself from the case, said, “I will be charged with conflict of interest. There is indeed a conflict of interest.”However, the Center defended the law, claiming that the autonomy of the Election Commission does not depend on the presence of judicial members on the electoral panel. It also refuted claims that the appointment of two electoral commissioners in March 2024 was a hasty appointment to preempt judicial review, noting that the process followed the provisions of the new law.The Supreme Court earlier refused to retain the appointments, although it agreed to review a broader constitutional challenge to the 2023 legislation.The Centre’s adjournment plea comes in the backdrop of an ongoing hearing before a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which is re-examining key issues regarding religious freedom, including the Sabarimala temple issue.During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench made a strong observation about the genesis of the 2006 PIL that culminated in the landmark Sabarimala judgment. It noted that the court should have “thrown into the dustbin” the petition filed by the All India Young Lawyers Association at the time, noting that the petition was largely based on newspaper reports and lacked proper standing.The judges said the most the court could do was order a limited investigation into alleged wrongdoing by temple authorities rather than take on a broader constitutional challenge. It also questioned the circumstances under which the plea was raised, with Justice Nagaratna expressing concern as to why long-standing religious practices were being questioned by individuals who did not adhere to their faith.Read more: Supreme Court says original Sabarimala PIL should be thrown in dustbin