Supreme Court ने Chief Election Commissioner (Appointment) Act, 2023 को चुनौती देने की सुनवाई शुरू की

<h2>Case Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and adjudicates disputes (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has started hearing petitions that contest the <strong>Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023</strong>. The bench comprises <strong>Justice Dipankar Datta</strong> and <strong>Justice Satish Chandra Sharma</strong>. The Court rejected the Centre’s request for an adjournment, emphasizing that the matter is “more important than any other”.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The petitioners argue that the 2023 Act violates constitutional principles laid down in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India judgement — Supreme Court decision that mandates a selection panel for Election Commissioners to include the Chief Justice of India, ensuring independence (GS2: Polity)">Anoop Baranwal v. UoI</span>.</li> <li>They contend that the law enables the appointment of a "<span class="key-term" data-definition="Prime Minister — Head of the Government of India, responsible for executive decisions (GS2: Polity)">Prime Minister</span>'s man", thereby compromising the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commission — Constitutional body tasked with administering free and fair elections in India (GS2: Polity)">Election Commission</span>’s independence.</li> <li>The Act proposes a selection panel that excludes the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India — The senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, who heads the judiciary (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice of India</span> and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Leader of the Opposition — The head of the largest party not in government in the Lok Sabha, representing dissenting views (GS2: Polity)">LoP</span>, contrary to earlier Supreme Court pronouncements.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• The 2023 Act seeks to streamline the appointment, service conditions, and tenure of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Election Commissioner — The head of the Election Commission, responsible for overall functioning and decision‑making (GS2: Polity)">Chief Election Commissioner</span> and other commissioners.</p> <p>• Petitioners claim the legislation undermines the constitutional guarantee of an autonomous election authority, a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework.</p> <p>• The bench’s decision to proceed without adjournment signals the judiciary’s intent to address the constitutional validity of the Act promptly.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding this case is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) because it touches upon:</p> <ul> <li>Separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional bodies.</li> <li>Procedural safeguards for the appointment of constitutional functionaries, a recurring theme in que