Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict on ECI Law, Refers Pleas to Chief Justice for Constitution Bench

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, ordering the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench. A two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reached an impasse over the central government request to refer the constitutional challenge to a larger bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

While the bench had reserved its decision on the reference demand on July 30, the two judges diverged sharply on the necessity of the referral and the underlying merits of the appointment mechanism. To avoid the procedural delay of submitting the question to an intermediate three-judge bench, the court elected to place the file directly before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate constitution.

Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the Union government demand for a reference, noting that five days of hearings had been conducted and that judicial consensus would have better served institutional cohesion. However, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed, maintaining that the petitions involved a substantial question of law requiring determination by a larger bench.

On the substantive issue, Justice Datta questioned the independence of the panel established under the 2023 statute, which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. He observed that it was insufficient for the Election Commission to merely function independently; it must also appear independent to the public.

Delivering critical remarks on the statutory framework, Justice Datta reasoned that a cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister is bound by collective cabinet responsibility and cannot be expected to defy their nominator. According to the bench notes, Justice Datta stated that expecting a minister to disagree with the government leader is far-fetched.

"It is far-fetched to expect that a minister who is part of Cabinet of Ministers would adopt a stand disagreeing with leader or government. Inclusion of cabinet ministers fails to provide an independent counterweight that a neutral selector would," Justice Datta said, highlighting the structural deficit in the current composition.

The ongoing litigation stems from petitions arguing that the 2023 Act violates the constitutional requirement for an independent election watchdog by excluding the judiciary from the selection committee. This statutory framework was enacted following the landmark 2025 Constitution Bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which mandated that election commissioners be appointed by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India unless Parliament enacted alternate legislation.

With the two-judge bench formally divided on the referral and the merits, the proceedings now await administrative action by the Chief Justice of India to determine the composition of the Constitution Bench that will finally adjudicate the constitutional validity of the statute.