The Supreme Court of India rejects Centre’s plea to defer hearing on the 2023 election commissioners law, raising concerns over exclusion of the Chief Justice from the selection panel.

The Supreme Court of India has declined the Centre’s request to postpone hearings on petitions challenging the 2023 law related to the appointment of election commissioners, stressing that the matter requires urgent attention.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma refused the adjournment plea made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who cited prior commitments before a Constitution bench dealing with religious freedom issues, including the Sabarimala case. The court, however, maintained that the present case holds greater significance and should proceed without delay.

The bench instructed petitioners to begin their arguments immediately and complete submissions within the stipulated timeline, with the Centre to respond thereafter. It also asked for details of constitutional bodies where the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India in selection committees is considered essential for ensuring fairness.

The petitions challenge the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel. Under the current framework, appointments are made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by him, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, argue that excluding the judiciary from the process could undermine the independence of the Election Commission. On the other hand, the Centre has defended the law, stating that the institution’s independence does not depend on judicial participation in appointments.

The law was passed in December 2023, months after a Constitution bench had recommended including the Chief Justice of India in the selection committee until Parliament enacted legislation.

Earlier, the court had refused to stay appointments made under the law. The matter remains under active hearing, with further arguments expected as proceedings continue.