Full Breakdown
Justice Dipankar Datta Challenges the “Judges Appoint Judges” Narrative in Split Verdict on Election-Commission Appointment Law
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On September 23 2026, Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta delivered a separate opinion in a split verdict on the constitutionality of the 2023 law that removes the Chief Justice of India from the panel that selects the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners. Justice Datta rebuked the Union government’s claim that the collegium system is an insular “judges appoint judges” mechanism, emphasizing the executive’s role at every stage and the President’s final approval.
Background & Context
The collegium system, created by the Supreme Court’s “Three Judges’ Cases” (1981-1998), tasks the Chief Justice of India and senior judges with recommending appointments and transfers of Supreme Court and high-court judges. Critics argue the system lacks transparency and that the executive can override recommendations. The 2023 law linking CEC appointments to this framework revived the debate.
Official Statements & Responses
- Justice Datta said the phrase “judges appoint judges” is a myth propagated by vested interests. He noted that the executive vets candidates, that intelligence agencies and state governments are consulted, and that every appointment bears the President’s imprimatur. He warned that selective approval of collegium names erodes the “sanctity of a collegium resolution.”
- Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the other judge on the bench, clarified that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submissions were not a critique of the collegium but an argument for comparable constitutional independence for the executive in forming the Election Commission selection committee.
Criticism & Opposition
Justice Sharma’s dissent argues that the government seeks parity of independence between the judiciary and the executive, not an indictment of the collegium’s functioning.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The constitutional quest is not to transfer primacy from one organ to another, but to secure a system that preserves institutional independence,” Justice Datta noted.” — Justice Datta
- “A sweeping generalisation that the Collegium acts as a law unto itself overlooks the detailed consultative process envisaged under the Constitution. And the intrinsic role of the executive, both at the Centre, and in the states, as well as intelligence and other agencies in the appointment process…and the fact that every appointment bears the imprimatur of the President.” — Justice Datta
- “Building upon the constitutional principle, the submission of the SG was that a corresponding degree of constitutional independence must be recognised for the executive as well as legislature.” — Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
What’s Next
The bench directed that the matters be placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant for administrative consideration, including the possible constitution of a permanent five-judge Constitution bench to adjudicate “seminal issues” such as the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive in appointment processes. No further hearing dates have been scheduled.