'This matter more important': Supreme Court says won't defer hearing on CJI's exclusion from panel to pick CEC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to allow a plea by the Centre to defer the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is “more important” than the Sabarimala case.

A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.

Taking up the pleas against the 2023 law, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.

Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, “This matter is more important than any other matter.”

“Let your associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place,” Justice Datta said.

The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date.

During the hearing, the court asked whether it can direct Parliament to make a law for regulating appointment procedures of the chief election commissioner and the deputies. The bench said the Constitution bench in Anoop Baranwal case laid down an interim mechanism to address a vacuum until Parliament enacted a law.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria for one of the petitioners contended that Parliament can enact a law to govern the appointment of CEC and ECs, it cannot directly or indirectly overrule a judgment of a constitutional court. He claimed the ruling party has a direct interest in election outcomes and thus, executive control over appointments created a conflict of interest.

Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. “I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest,” the CJI had said.

The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.

The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.

Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).

The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.

The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.