The Supreme Court of India on 23 September 2026 delivered a split verdict in a two‑judge bench on the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The judges disagreed not on the merits but on whether a two‑judge bench could hear a case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation.
Key Developments
- Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on the applicability of Article 145(3). Datta rejected the Union’s plea for a larger bench; Sharma accepted it.
- The Union government argued that the case raised a "substantial question of law" and therefore required a Constitution Bench, although this claim was absent from its counter‑affidavit.
- Both judges jointly referred the matter to the CJI for constituting such a bench, delaying the final decision.
Important Facts
The 2023 Act created a Selection Committee to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners. This replaced the interim arrangement from Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023), where the CJI acted as the third member.
Justice Datta cited the 1959 State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Thakur Ganga Singh and the 2003 People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2003) to argue that the present case does not automatically qualify for a five‑judge bench.
Justice Sharma, however, argued that because no prior Supreme Court decision has directly examined the 2023 Act’s constitutionality, a Constitution Bench is mandatory.
Exam Relevance
This dispute highlights several core UPSC topics:
- Structure and functioning of the Supreme Court, especially the role of bench composition.
- Appointment process of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission and the balance between executive and judicial influence.
- Interpretation of constitutional provisions such as Article 324 and the principle of stare decisis.
- Recommendations of the Law Commission for judicial reforms.
Way Forward
To avoid prolonged delays and ensure uniformity, the Court could consider:
- Establishing a permanent Constitution Bench with transparent criteria for member selection.
- Clarifying the test for "substantial question of constitutional interpretation" to reduce divergent lower‑bench opinions.
- Ensuring that the appointment committee for the Election Commission reflects the constitutional requirement of independence, possibly by revisiting the role of the CJI in the process.
These steps would strengthen the judiciary’s role as a constitutional guardian and align with the UPSC emphasis on institutional checks and balances.