Published May 15, 2026 | 1:31 PM ⚊ Updated May 15, 2026 | 1:31 PM
Supreme Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the inclusion of a union cabinet minister in the committee that appoints the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, observing that “the process must both be independent and appear independent”. A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The Supreme Court on the morning of Thursday, 14 May, questioned the inclusion of a union cabinet minister in the selection committee for appointing the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, observing that “the process must not only be independent but also appear to be independent”, LiveLaw reported.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The Act, passed by the BJP-led NDA government, provides for a committee comprising the prime minister, a union cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of the opposition to appoint the chief election commissioner and election commissioners.
The petitioners have argued that the law effectively gives the executive a majority in the decision-making process.
“The third member should be somebody who is a neutral person. He should select. Why should it be a minister from the cabinet?” Justice Datta asked Attorney General R Venkataramani, according to LiveLaw.
The judge added that public confidence in the Election Commission “must be to that degree as if there had been a third neutral person in the selection committee”.
Also read: ECI announces SIR Phase III across 16 States, 3 UTs including Karnataka, AP and Telangana
Retired IAS officer SN Shukla, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the law failed to ensure the independence of the Election Commission and called the legislation “a fraud on the constitution”.
He said the search committee and selection committee were both effectively controlled by the executive, which made the presence of the leader of the opposition meaningless because the two executive members could outvote the opposition member.
Attorney General R Venkataramani said the petitions were based on the incorrect assumption that the Act destroys the independence of the Election Commission.
He said independence should not be judged in theory but tested by how election commissioners perform once they take office.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing.
