SC Refuses Centre’s Plea to Defer Hearing on EC Appointment Law Challenge, Says Matter More Important Than Sabarimala Case

May 6, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to adjourn the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, despite the Centre’s request citing the ongoing nine-judge bench proceedings in the Sabarimala reference case.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma declined Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s request for adjournment, observing that the challenge to the 2023 law concerning appointments to the Election Commission was of greater constitutional significance. Justice Datta remarked that the matter was “more important than any other matter” and directed the petitioners to continue their submissions, while allowing the Centre to argue later.

The bench also referred to media reports regarding observations made in the Sabarimala proceedings questioning whether the PIL itself ought to have been entertained, noting that nine judges were occupied with that matter while the present challenge involved the independence of the Election Commission.

The petitions challenge the 2023 law enacted by Parliament which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. Under the law, the committee now comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the largest opposition party.

The legislation was passed months after a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in March 2023 ruled that appointments to the Election Commission should be made by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law on the issue.

The petitions, filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, the Association for Democratic Reforms, and others, contend that excluding the CJI undermines the independence and neutrality of the appointment process.

Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant had recused himself from hearing the matter, citing a possible conflict of interest. The Centre has defended the law, arguing that the independence of the Election Commission does not depend on the inclusion of a judicial member in the selection committee. The Supreme Court had also earlier refused to stay the appointment of new Election Commissioners made under the 2023 law. (PTI)