Supreme Court posts challenge to new CEC/EC appointments law to April 16, petitioners say case goes to the very roots of democracy

A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant listed the case in mid-April following an oral mention made by advocate Prashant Bhushan. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (March 19, 2025) scheduled a detailed hearing of a challenge to a law giving the Central government a dominant role in the appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners on April 16.

A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant listed the case in mid-April following an oral mentioning made by advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for petitioner-NGO Association for Democratic Reform (ADR).

The case was originally listed before the Bench for hearing on March 19, but placed towards the fag end of the board.

Mr. Bhushan voiced the possibility that the case would not come up for hearing on March 19, and sought a future date. “This case goes to the very roots of democracy,” he submitted.

The case hearing was similarly adjourned in February. At that time, it was on a request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, who said he was appearing in another courtroom before a Constitution Bench. The case was pushed to March 19.

Meanwhile, a new Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, was appointed under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act of 2023. The apex court had in the past refused a plea to stay the implementation of the law.

The petitioners have argued that the law was introduced to dilute a Constitution Bench delivered in March 2023 in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, which had included the Chief Justice of India as a member of the high-powered selection committee involved in the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).

The bone of contention is under the validity of Section 7(1) of the statute. The provision mandated that the President would appoint the CECs and ECs on the recommendation of a selection committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister. The statute, in short, had replaced the CJI on the selection panel with a Union Minister, giving the government an upper hand in appointments to the Election Commission of India.

The petitioners like activist Dr. Jaya Thakur, represented by advocate Varun Thakur, and advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, who represented an intervenor, have highlighted that the pivotal legal question in the case was whether the Parliament could circumvent a Constitution Bench judgment without giving explicit reasons for doing so.

Justice Kant had, on an earlier occasion, orally observed that the test regarding the validity of the 2023 Act would hinge on whether the apex court’s authority to pronounce binding decisions under Article 141 of the Constitution could be circumvented or diluted by a law.

“The real test here is between the court’s opinion and exercise of legislative powers,” Justice Kant had remarked.