Supreme Court ने Election Commissioners Act केस में Union Govt की Adjournment Request को खारिज किया

<h2>Supreme Court Refuses Adjournment in Election Commissioners Act Petition</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India's apex judicial body, final interpreter of the Constitution and guardian of fundamental rights (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on 6 May 2026 denied the Union Government’s plea to postpone the hearing of petitions challenging the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 — legislation that prescribes the selection committee and service conditions for the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (GS2: Polity)">Election Commissioners Act, 2023</span>. The petitions question whether the Act complies with the Court’s March 2023 judgment that ECs must be appointed by a neutral panel until Parliament enacts a law.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Solicitor General of India <span class="key-term" data-definition="Solicitor General of India — the second‑highest law officer of the Government of India, who assists the Union in Supreme Court matters (GS2: Polity)">Tushar Mehta</span> sought a two‑judge bench led by Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Dipankar Datta — a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, part of the bench hearing the case (GS2: Polity)">Dipankar Datta</span> to adjourn the hearing, citing his involvement in the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — a constitutional reference concerning the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala</span> matter before a nine‑judge bench.</li> <li>Justice Datta, referencing comments that the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — a legal tool allowing any person to seek judicial redress on matters of public concern (GS2: Polity)">PIL</span> on Sabarimala should not have been entertained, emphasized that the present EC case is more consequential.</li> <li>The bench, comprising Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice Satish Chandra Sharma — a Supreme Court judge hearing the petition (GS2: Polity)">Satish Chandra Sharma</span>, rejected the adjournment, directing petitioners to begin arguments and asking the Union to present its case on a later date.</li> <li>Petitioners were instructed to finish their arguments by the following day.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The petitions were filed by <strong>Dr. Jaya Thakur</strong>, the NGOs <strong>Association for Democratic Reforms</strong> and <strong>Lok Prahari</strong>, among others. The challenged Act, passed in December 2023, creates a selection committee of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prime Minister — head of the Council of Ministers and chief executive of the Union Government (GS2: Polity)">Prime Minister</span>, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha). Critics argue this co