A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday heard petitions challenging a controversial 2023 law which changed the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
The new law formed an appointing committee comprised the prime minister, leader of opposition and a union cabinet minister, nominated by the prime minister instead of the Chief Justice of India, as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Critics questioned the inclusion of the cabinet minister instead of an independent chief justice and argued that such a process would impede the independence of the election authority in India.
On Wednesday, a two-judge bench of the apex court disagreed on how to proceed, ultimately referring the matter to a three-judge bench.
The member nominated by the prime minister cannot be expected to defy the prime minister," Justice Datta observed, speaking of the cabinet minister.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday heard petitions challenging a controversial 2023 law which changed the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
The new law formed an appointing committee comprised the prime minister, leader of opposition and a union cabinet minister, nominated by the prime minister instead of the Chief Justice of India, as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Critics questioned the inclusion of the cabinet minister instead of an independent chief justice and argued that such a process would impede the independence of the election authority in India.
On Wednesday, a two-judge bench of the apex court disagreed on how to proceed, ultimately referring the matter to a three-judge bench.
Justice Dipankar Datta opined that the new appointment method failed the "perception trust," as reported by legal media outlet Live Law.
"Free and fair elections depend on a truly independent ECI. It is not enough for the ECI to be independent; it must appear to be independent. The member nominated by the prime minister cannot be expected to defy the prime minister," Justice Datta observed, speaking of the cabinet minister.
Meanwhile, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the issue would have to be determined by a Constitutional Bench since it involved substantial Interpretation of the Indian constitution.
