Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Judge Defends Collegium Amid Election Commission Appointment Dispute
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Judgment on the 2023 Election Commissioner Appointment Law
On September 23, a two-judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court—Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma—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*. The petitions sought a referral to a larger Constitution bench to examine whether the new law, which creates a three-member Selection Committee (Prime Minister, Union Cabinet Minister, and Leader of the Opposition) and excludes the Chief Justice of India, compromises the independence of the Election Commission of India. Justice Datta rejected the request for a larger-bench reference; Justice Sharma dissented, arguing that the issue warrants a larger bench.
Background & Context: Collegium System and the 2023 Law
India’s judicial appointments have long been governed by the collegium system, wherein senior judges collectively recommend candidates. Critics say the practice lacks transparency. The 2023 law extends executive influence to the Election Commission’s top posts, prompting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to draw a parallel with judicial appointments, suggesting that the collegium already permits “outsiders” in the selection process.
Official Statements & Responses
- Government’s Position (Solicitor General Mehta): The executive can participate without undermining independence, and the 2023 law reflects an existing consultative framework.
- Bench Direction: The court ordered that the matters be placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant for administrative handling and invited the CJI to consider establishing a permanent five-judge Constitution bench for future seminal issues.
Criticism & Opposition: Dissenting View of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Justice Sharma contended that the petitions raise a “substantial question of law” that cannot be resolved by a two-judge bench. He advocated for referral to a larger Constitution bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for a definitive pronouncement on the compatibility of the 2023 selection mechanism with constitutional principles.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Story continues below this ad “A sweeping generalisation that the Collegium acts as a law unto itself overlooks the detailed consultative process envisaged under the Constitution.” — Justice Datta
- “The oft-repeated phrase that 'judges appoint judges' is a myth,” — Justice Datta
What's Next: Prospects for Judicial Reform
The Supreme Court’s directive to the Chief Justice to explore a permanent Constitution bench suggests that the judiciary may seek a more structured forum for resolving constitutional disputes of this magnitude.