The bench led by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta told the petitioners who have challenged the new law.”At this stage, we cannot stop the legislation or suspend its operation. It would lead to chaos and uncertainty, and we cannot do it (stay) by way of an interim order. There are no allegations against the new election commissioners,”
NEW DELHI: Today (March 21st), the Supreme Court refused to stay on the law to appoint election commissioners, stating that doing so at this stage would be “creating chaos.”
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta presided over the hearing of petitions filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, the Association for Democratic Reforms, and others, challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The petitioners contested the amendment removing the chief justice from the commission selection process.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said,
“You can’t say the Election Commission is under the thumb of the Executive.”
“The search committee for the appointment of election commissioners should have been given a fair share of time to understand the backgrounds of candidates,” the bench observed.
The Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Act, 2023, supersedes the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, outlining procedures for appointing, compensating, and dismissing these officials.
The new legislation establishes a selection panel chaired by the prime minister and includes only one opposition member, a move criticized by petitioners for disregarding the Supreme Court’s earlier directive to ensure the commission’s independence from government influence.
READ ALSO: BREAKING | Supreme Court Denies Stay on New EC Appointments, Sets Hearing for March 21
The top court said the 2023 verdict (Anoop Baranwal Judgement) of its constitution bench nowhere said there has to be a member from the judiciary on the selection panel for the appointment of election commissioners under the new law.
The top court said it will examine the main petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 Act, asked the Center to file its response within six weeks, and posted the matter for hearing on August 5.
“At this stage, we cannot stop the legislation or suspend its operation. It would lead to chaos and uncertainty, and we cannot do it (stay) by way of an interim order. There are no allegations against the new election commissioners,” a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta told the petitioners who have challenged the new law.
It said the intent of the 2023 verdict, which proposed a selection panel comprising the prime minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India, was for a period till Parliament enacts a law.
The verdict was intended to nudge Parliament to enact law as there was a “vacuum” and it didn’t say what kind of law should be made, the bench said.
The petitioners were also seeking a stay on the appointment of new election commissioners.
“We are dismissing the applications for stay on the appointment,” the bench said.
On March 14, the selection panel, consisting of three members, appointed two former Indian Administrative Service officers, Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, as election commissioners. During the recent hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns about the violation of the Constitution bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case and the rushed nature of the recent appointments, respectively.
The panel had PM Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Mr Chowdhury.
The senior Congress leader had said,
“The Chief Justice of India should have been on this committee,” adding that the new law had reduced the meeting to a “formality”.
Justice Khanna questioned Bhushan regarding the basis of his challenge to the Act, stating that since the appointments had already been made and elections were imminent, the issue required a careful consideration of convenience and that there were no allegations against the appointees.
Bhushan stressed the importance of maintaining an independent Election Commission, a sentiment echoed by Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Sanjay Parikh, who emphasized the detrimental impact of the act on the democratic process.
Mr. Bhushan then said that the point being raised by the petitioners was the procedure of selection and the independence of the Commission.
READ ALSO: President Approves Bill for Chief Election Commissioner and ECs’ Appointment Process
“They have a point there…you have to give opportunity to examine names,” the bench said, adding that this could have been avoided by giving 2-3 days to the members to study the list.
Despite these arguments, the bench refused to stay the implementation of the act at this stage, stating that the petitioners’ concerns would be examined.
A five-judge constitution bench ruled in March 2023 that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.
