Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms , mentioned the matter before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, seeking an urgent hearing. Bhushan emphasized the importance of the issue, stating it "goes to the root of democracy" and pertains to the adherence to the Supreme Court's 2023 Constitution bench verdict.
The 2023 Constitution bench had directed that appointments to the Election Commission should be made by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the CJI. This decision aimed to enhance the independence of the Election Commission by involving the judiciary in the selection process. However, the 2023 Act altered this composition, removing the CJI from the panel.
The petitioners argue that excluding the CJI from the selection committee undermines the autonomy of the Election Commission. They contend that the previous system, which included the CJI, provided a necessary check and balance, ensuring that appointments were not solely influenced by the executive branch.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court has agreed to prioritize the hearing. Justice Surya Kant assured that the court would ensure minimal urgent listings on April 16 to facilitate a focused discussion on this matter.
The government's enactment of the 2023 law has been a point of contention. Critics argue that by excluding the judiciary from the selection process, the law could lead to appointments that are more susceptible to political influence, thereby compromising the impartiality of the Election Commission.
The upcoming hearing will address these concerns, examining whether the 2023 Act aligns with the constitutional mandate for an independent Election Commission. The court's decision will have significant implications for the future of electoral governance in the country.
This development underscores the ongoing debate about the balance of power between different branches of government and the mechanisms in place to ensure the independence of institutions vital to democracy. The outcome of the April 16 hearing will be closely watched by legal experts, political analysts, and the public alike, as it will shape the framework within which future elections are conducted.
The Supreme Court's decision to expedite the hearing reflects the urgency and importance of the issue, acknowledging the potential impact on the democratic process. As the date approaches, stakeholders from various sectors will be preparing to present their arguments, highlighting the critical nature of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Election Commission.
The petitions challenging the 2023 Act have brought to the forefront questions about the appropriate balance in the appointment process for key constitutional positions. The inclusion of the judiciary in such processes has traditionally been viewed as a safeguard against potential biases, ensuring that appointments are made based on merit and not partisan considerations.