SC Adjourns Pleas Against CEC, EC Appointments Under 2023 Law

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 19th Feb. The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred hearings on pleas challenging the appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC) under the 2023 law.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh indicated that the matter would be listed after the Holi festival break due to time constraints but did not specify a date for the hearing.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), urged for an urgent hearing, stating that the issue required immediate consideration. The petitioners are challenging whether the appointments should follow the 2023 Supreme Court verdict, which mandated a selection panel including the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and Chief Justice of India (CJI), or the 2023 law that excludes the CJI from the process.

At around 3 PM, Justice Surya Kant informed Bhushan that the court had multiple cases lined up before the break. Bhushan requested a hearing next week, assuring that arguments would not exceed an hour.

Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for petitioner Jaya Thakur, also pressed for an urgent hearing, calling it crucial for democracy. However, Justice Surya Kant maintained that all cases before the court were equally important.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, cited prior commitments before a Constitution Bench and was unavailable to address the issue.

CEC Appointment Under New Law
On February 17, the government appointed Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as the next CEC. He is the first CEC to be appointed under the 2023 law and will serve until January 26, 2029. Vivek Joshi, a 1989-batch Haryana-cadre IAS officer, was also appointed as an EC, with a tenure lasting until 2031.

The 2023 law mandates that a CEC or EC can serve for six years or until the age of 65. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that appointments should be made by a panel including the CJI, but the new law excludes the judiciary from the process.

ADR has challenged the exclusion of the CJI, arguing that the selection process must be insulated from political and executive influence to ensure free and fair elections. The petition contends that the government’s decision undermines democracy and increases executive control over the Election Commission.

The case will now be taken up post-Holi for further deliberation.