The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused the Centre's appeal to adjourn hearing challenges to the law that has dropped the Chief Justice of India from the panel of high-ranking individuals who appoint the country's Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, asked for the hearing to be adjourned because he is involved in another high-profile case - the challenge to the court's verdict striking down prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the temple in Kerala's Sabarimala.
However, Justice Dipankar Datta turned down that request, declaring this hearing to be "most important". The court, he told Mehta, had fixed the date for today's hearing well in advance, and referred to a newspaper report in which the nine-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala case reportedly said the PIL in that matter should not have been heard at all.
"Kindly keep it (the Chief Election Commissioner Bill) next week. I am stuck in the nine-judge bench. I want to be present when the petitioners present their arguments," Mehta said.
"If you had told us one week back, we could have accommodated. But we fixed this hearing a month back. Nine-judge bench will not get over next week… let your associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important."
"We read in the newspaper that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation it should not have been entertained in the first place."
In March 2023, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (EC) should be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.
Later that same year, the Centre pushed a law that said the panel would not include the Chief Justice of India, replacing him with a Union minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.
Petitions have been filed challenging the appointments under this law on the grounds it gives the government an upper hand in the selection process of officials meant to ensure a free and impartial election. The petitions were to be heard by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant.
However, in March this year the Chief Justice recused himself from the case over an obvious conflict of interest. During the first hearing he said: "Should I even hear this matter? Perhaps somebody will accuse me of having a conflict of interest."
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a petitioner, said no one would make such an accusation, but suggested that it would be better if Chief Justice Kant did not hear the matter.
The Chief Justice then said the petitions would be listed before a bench in which there would be no judge who is in line to become the Chief Justice of India. Bhushan agreed and said: "I had this in mind. So it can be listed before a bench not having a prospective Chief Justice of India."
