SC reserves order on referring matter of appointment of CEC, ECs to larger bench: ‘Show of fairness’

Published 31 July 2026 · india

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on whether the pleas challenging the validity of the 2023 law relating to the appointment of the

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on whether the pleas challenging the validity of the 2023 law relating to the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners should be referred to a larger five-judge bench. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The 2023 law had excluded the Chief Justice of India () from the selection panel for Election Commissioners. The bench said, "We are reserving judgment on the reference. You can provide your written arguments." 'Do judges really select judges' Do judges really select judges in India today, the Supreme Court asked on Thursday as it deliberated over Centre's role in the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners in India. According to Bar and Bench, the Supreme Court made the remark after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the executive and legislature are directly accountable to the people and cautioned against presuming the Prime Minister would act in bad faith or against democracy. "As you said judges select judges, we wonder whether judges select judges nowadays," the Bench was quote by Bar and Bench as saying.

'Can’t PM be trusted on appointing CEC?' The Centre questioned in the Supreme Court on Thursday the insistence on having the Chief Justice of India () on the Prime Minister’s panel, which selects the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). It said that if the Prime Minister's decision cannot be trusted, then an “outsider” or a former judge must sit in to advise on the appointment of Cabinet Ministers as well, Live Law reported. SG Tushar Mehta argued that a constitutional court cannot begin with an assumption that the Prime Minister or the executive would act against democratic values. "The office of Prime Minister has a sanctity attached," Mehta submitted. "If his decision is not to be trusted... then why not have a provision that even while selecting his Cabinet he must consult some former judge or outsider?" he asked. Responding to the Centre's argument that the Supreme Court should trust the Prime Minister, Justice Datta said, according to Live Law, "Why wouldn't we trust the Prime Minister? Of course we would trust the Prime Minister." 'Show of fairness' The Supreme Court also observed that two members on the panel selecting Election Commissioners are on the side of the government, and only one member remains on the other side.