Can’t PM be trusted on appointing CEC, government asks Supreme Court

Published 30 July 2026 · politics

The Union government questioned in the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30, 2026) the insistence on having the Chief Justice of India () on the

The Union government questioned in the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30, 2026) the insistence on having the Chief Justice of India () on the Prime Minister’s panel which selects the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), saying if the decision of the Prime Minister cannot be trusted then an “outsider” or a former judge must sit in to advice on the appointment of Cabinet Ministers too. The Centre’s submission came while hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act of 2023. The petitions have contended that the Act “defeated” a Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which had constituted a CEC selection panel chaired by the Prime Minister and including the Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha and the. The 2023 Act, passed within months of the judgment, had replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Also Read | to shift challenge to 2023 CEC appointment law to another Bench A Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta had, in past hearings, questioned the lack of even “one absolutely neutral person” on the Prime Minister’s committee.

The court had remarked that a Cabinet Minister would hardly defy the Prime Minister. The court had said the “dominant” presence of the Executive in the selection panel would send wrong signals to the public. “If the Prime Minister’s decision is not to be trusted, why not have someone from outside or a former judge to select the Ministers also,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the government, asked on Thursday. Mehta, quoting from a 2014 apex court judgment in the Manoj Narula case, said the Prime Minister’s office held constitutional trust and high sanctity. The law officer asked if a constitutional court, while deciding the composition of a committee in a statute, could presume abuse of power, bad faith and mala fide intention on part of the constitutional functionaries. Justice Datta said the question was not about “lack of faith” in the Prime Minister, but about the principle of “justice not only being done, but shown to be done”. Also Read | was only meant to have a say in CEC/EC appointments till Parliament brought a law: Supreme Court “The appointment procedure should be shown to be fair… The issue is that the composition of this committee tilts in favour of one side.

There is a two versus one here, two of the Executive and one of the Opposition. Should there not be a show of fairness in the appointment to one of the most important offices of this country,” Justice Datta asked the Union government. Mehta queried whether the Anoop Baranwal judgment could really restrict the wisdom of the Parliament to replace the with a Cabinet Minister on the CEC selection panel. Like independence of the judiciary, the Constitution has also envisaged independence for the Legislative and Executive, the Solicitor General said. At this juncture in the hearing, Justice Datta referred to the government’s oft-repeated complaint about the Collegium system of “judges selecting judges”. “We wonder whether judges are really selecting judges nowadays,” Justice Datta said in a veiled comment about Executive interference in judicial appointments to the highest courts. Also Read | Supreme Court asks if there was a ‘proper debate’ in Parliament before enacting CEC/EC appointments law The court reserved judgment on the point whether the case should be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench.