Split SC Bench sends Election Commissioners law challenge to CJI
A two-judge Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma split on September 23 over whether it could decide the challenge to the 2023 law on appointing Election Commissioners. Justice Sharma accepted the Union's plea for a five-judge Bench under Article 145(3); Justice Datta rejected it. Both placed the matter before the Chief Justice.
Syllabus: GS2 · Constitution; Prelims · Polity & Governance; GS2 · Executive & Judiciary
Why it matters
Every voter relies on the Election Commission to run polls fairly, and the way its members are chosen shapes whether it is seen as independent. Under the 2023 Act, the Prime Minister and a Cabinet Minister he nominates hold two of the three seats on the selection panel. Justice Datta, in a prima facie view, said such a minister cannot be expected to defy his own nominator, which leaves the Leader of Opposition's place largely ornamental. The split verdict means the law's validity stays undecided until a larger Bench hears the case. Delay is a real risk: the Anoop Baranwal case took eight years from filing to decision, and so the judges asked the Chief Justice to explore a permanent five-judge Bench.
Prelims pointers
- Article 145(3): a case involving a substantial question of law on interpreting the Constitution must be heard by at least five judges.
- Anoop Baranwal read Article 324 to require that Election Commission appointments be insulated from exclusive executive control.
- Under Article 141, law declared by the Supreme Court binds every court.
- AIR 1960 SC 356 (State of J&K, decided 1959), relied on by Justice Datta: a question of constitutional interpretation arises only when parties offer differing constructions of a provision.
- The CJI, as Master of the Roster, decides which judges sit on which Bench.
Practise a UPSC-style question
Consider the following statements about the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023:
1. It was enacted in December 2023.
2. Its selection committee includes the Chief Justice of India.
3. It replaced an interim arrangement put in place by a Constitution Bench.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer
Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only
1 is correct: the Act received the President's assent on 28 December 2023. 2 is incorrect: its selection committee is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister; the Chief Justice of India is not on it. 3 is correct: it replaced the interim panel set up by the Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal (2023).
More from the 3 October 2026 edition
- Centre allows final decisions on pending post-facto environmental clearance cases Environment
- Law Ministry notifies rules for National Tribunals Commission and tribunal selection Polity
- Strategic petroleum reserves: G7 to release 100 million barrels through IEA Economy
- Tigress T138 released into Bengal's Buxa Tiger Reserve Environment
- Jal Arpan: over 1,850 panchayats take charge of rural water schemes National
- MHA orders 48-hour reporting of cases against AGMUT officers Polity
- Forest-loss dispute in Udanti Sitanadi tests conservation and community rights Environment
- Allahabad HC rules hookah service barred in designated smoking areas Polity
- Allahabad HC opens noise-enforcement PIL, seeks accountability Environment
- INS Sahyadri and Kulish conclude AIME 2026 in the Philippines Defence