The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the appointment of the chief election commissioner (CEC) under a 2023 law that excluded the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel.

On Tuesday, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh had agreed to examine on Wednesday the plea for a “priority” and “out-of-turn” hearing of the petitions.

On Wednesday, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, expressed his inability to address the court on the issue as he was appearing before the constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna on the arbitration law.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Association of Democratic Rights, said Mehta’s absence could not be a ground for adjourning the matter.

“Every matter can’t be adjourned because the solicitor-general is in another court. They (Centre) have 17 other law officers,” Bhushan said, suggesting that an additional solicitor-general could represent the Centre on the issue.

Mehta shot back at Bhushan saying: “Let’s not stoop that low.”

Justice Surya Kant told Mehta: “In case you get free, let us know. Otherwise, we will accommodate (adjourn the matter).”

Mehta continued arguing before the constitution bench till 4.25pm.

Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Jaya Thakur, had also mentioned the matter for an urgent hearing, saying it was “very important for the survival of democracy”.

“All matters are very important. We don’t think that any matter is not important,” Justice Surya Kant told Thakur.

On Wednesday, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra moved an intervention application seeking to be heard along with other petitioners in the ongoing matter.

Despite the pendency of the batch of PILs, the Centre had on Monday proceeded with the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC and Vivek Joshi as an election commissioner under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The Act had replaced the CJI with a cabinet minister on the selection panel, thereby increasing the government’s say in the appointment of poll panel officials.

The petitioners maintain that the legislation violated the judgment of a five-judge constitution bench in the Anoop Baranwal case that mandated that the selection committee should have the Prime Minister, the CJI and the leader of the Opposition.