Supreme Court Questions Absence of CJI In CEC Selection Panel; Centre Says PM Can Be Trusted
Supreme Court Questions Absence of In CEC Selection Panel; Centre Says PM Can Be Trusted Published By, Last Updated: July 31, 2026, 08:13 IST SC
Supreme Court Questions Absence of In CEC Selection Panel; Centre Says PM Can Be Trusted Published By, Last Updated: July 31, 2026, 08:13 IST SC questioned the government, while hearing petitions against the 2023 CEC appointment law, on why was not included. Centre responded saying the PM won't act in bad faith. Rapid Read Supreme Court has asked why the was not included on the selection panel for Chief Election Commissioner. (Image credit: Reuters, Wikimedia Commons) Highlighting the need for a fair and independent process in appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), the Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the poll watchdog must not only function independently but must also be seen to do so. The court also questioned why Parliament chose to exclude the Chief Justice of India () from the selection panel while framing the law. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the is part of selection committees for key posts such as the CBI director and the Lokpal, and asked what justified the exclusion in appointments to the Election Commission, an institution central to any democracy.
The bench reserved its verdict on the Centre’s request to refer the matter to a Constitution bench. The court is currently hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law, under which the CEC and ECs are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the court should not proceed on the presumption that the Prime Minister would act contrary to democratic principles. Defending the law, Mehta said the public must repose trust in the Prime Minister’s decisions, stressing the sanctity of the office. Background In 2023, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had directed that, until Parliament enacted a law, appointments should be made by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the, and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure independence. Parliament later passed the 2023 Act, replacing the with a Cabinet minister.
Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Mehta urged the bench not to question Parliament’s legislative wisdom, arguing that doing so would encroach upon the independence of the legislature. The Attorney General said a law could not be challenged merely because an alternative model existed, asserting that “Parliament cannot be gagged." Repose Faith In PM Mehta added that the three organs of the state, the executive, legislature, and judiciary, are independent and must respect each other’s domains. “People must trust the Prime Minister. The office carries its own sanctity. If every decision is presumed to be in bad faith, then by that logic even Cabinet appointments would require consultation with outsiders," Mehta argued. He maintained that it would be inappropriate to assume that elected representatives would act against constitutional principles simply because they command a majority. The bench clarified that it was not questioning the Prime Minister’s integrity, but raised concerns about institutional safeguards. It also asked how many ministers currently face pending criminal cases, recalling that the court had earlier relied on the government to ensure that individuals with criminal backgrounds were not given positions of responsibility.
The BriefWire