The Supreme Court on Wednesday posted to April 16 the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the appointment of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners under a 2023 law that excluded the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel.
The top court indicated that it would wrap up the case on the very same day even though it has witnessed 12 adjournments so far.
Despite the pendency of the PILs, the Centre had on February 17 proceeded with the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as the chief election commissioner (CEC) and Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as election commissioners (ECs).
On Wednesday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh fixed the date after advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, said the matter was listed at No. 38 and was not likely to be heard during the course of the day.
Bhushan said the case “goes to the very root of democracy” and the government, by appointing the new CEC and EC under the 2023 law, was making a “mockery” of it.
Justice Kant, heading the bench, said the court would list the matter on April 16 and ensure that the hearing was completed on the same day.
On February 18, the top court had said it would take up the pleas on “priority basis”.
The PIL petitioners, which also include Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Jaya Thakur and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, had challenged the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, on the ground that it was contrary to a judgment delivered by a five-judge constitution bench in the Anoop Baranwal case.
The apex court had mandated that the selection committee for the appointment of the CEC and the ECs must include the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the Opposition.
However, the new law brought in by the NDA government replaced the CJI with a “cabinet minister”. The change gave the executive a greater say in the selection of the poll panel chief and his deputies.
The matter has so far witnessed 12 hearings/adjournments without any substantial arguments. The reasons behind the adjournments ranged from paucity of time and requests from counsel appearing for various parties.