The Supreme Court of India flagged serious procedural defects in a petition filed by Association for Democratic Reforms challenging the CEC appointment law. The Court said the defect must be cured, adding, “Somebody has to take responsibility for the statements made.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court pointed out serious procedural flaws in a petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenging the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma stressed that even petitions raising important constitutional issues must still meet procedural requirements.
Hearing the petitions against the law that removed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners, Justice Datta drew attention to the verification section of ADR’s petition.
“Come to page 35 of your petition and see the verification part.”
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ADR, told the Court that the verification page was blank and submitted,
“It happens sometimes.”
Justice Datta remarked, adding that the defect caused displeasure,
“This is our experience in the Supreme Court. It doesn’t happen in the High Court,”
The Bench also noted that it had refused to adjourn the matter on the previous day, despite its importance, only to encounter such defects now.
The Court clarified that it was not inclined to reject the petition merely because of the procedural lapse, but said the responsibility for pleadings filed before the apex court could not be overlooked.
Justice Datta said,
“We are not saying we will not entertain it on this ground, but this defect has to be cured. Somebody has to take responsibility for the statements made,”
Bhushan informed the Court that the defect could be rectified during the course of the day, and explained that the person who was meant to verify the petition had passed away.
However, the Bench highlighted that procedural safeguards are an integral part of the judicial process, particularly in constitutional litigation before the Supreme Court.
Justice Datta observed,
“When the Supreme Court is approached on such an important issue, we cannot simply say we will go by substance. This will not set a good example. Then don’t have petitions, don’t have verification, don’t have evidence,”
The Court reiterated that procedural requirements cannot be disregarded even when substantial constitutional questions are involved.
The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act, which replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee for appointing Election Commissioners.
The Bench had earlier, on May 6, indicated the case’s priority, observing,
“This matter is more important than any other matter,”
Also directed that no other matters would be taken up during the day.
The Court had asked the petitioners to begin arguments, allowing the Solicitor General to respond at a later stage, and directed that submissions on behalf of the petitioners be completed by the next day.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Section 7 of the 2023 Act gives the executive overriding influence over appointments, contrary to the principles laid down in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
He submitted that the selection process is effectively dominated by the Prime Minister and a Union Minister nominated by him, thereby weakening the independence of the Election Commission. Hansaria warned that excessive executive control could ultimately erode public confidence in electoral processes.