Back
Supreme Court Wishes EC Speed for Judge Appointments
In a striking observation that underscores the chronic delays plaguing India's judicial appointment process, the on Wednesday remarked that it wished judges—especially judges—were appointed with the same alacrity as Election Commissioners (ECs). This comment came during the hearing of petitions challenging the , before a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. , representing one of the petitioners, argued that EC appointments under the new law were rushed without meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), prompting the bench to reflect on systemic inefficiencies in judicial selections. While the Court rejected unsubstantiated claims of executive motive, the exchange highlights deeper tensions over institutional independence and procedural fairness in key constitutional appointments.
The hearing, which remains ongoing, centers not on individual appointees but on the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act itself—a law that tilts the balance of a three-member selection committee heavily toward the executive, with the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM, and the LoP.
Background: The 2023 Act and Its Genesis
The controversy traces back to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), where a Constitution Bench mandated that, until Parliament enacted a law, ECs (other than the Chief Election Commissioner, or CEC) would be appointed by a committee comprising the CJI, a senior-most SC judge, the PM, and the LoP. This interim measure aimed to insulate the from executive dominance, ensuring its independence under , which vests superintendence of elections in the ECI.
However, Parliament swiftly responded with the 2023 Act, notified on , replacing the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection panel. Critics, including the petitioners, argue this reversion undermines the judiciary's safeguarding role, potentially compromising the ECI's autonomy amid rising concerns over fair elections. The Act specifies a Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary to shortlist five candidates, from which the selection committee picks. Appointees Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were selected under this framework in March 2024, filling vacancies left by retirees.
This legislative pushback echoes past battles, such as the struck down in 2015 for violating the . For legal professionals, the case revives debates on : can Parliament dilute judicially mandated safeguards without amending the Constitution?
The Hearing Unfolds: Arguments on Hasty Appointments
Senior Advocate Hansaria submitted that appointments were executed with undue haste to preempt judicial intervention. He detailed the timeline: On
, the LoP received a list of 200 shortlisted names. The very next day, March 14, the selection committee convened and finalized Kumar and Sandhu.
"This is what happens when you give absolute power to one individual. How can the LoP be expected to look into so many names in one day?"
Hansaria argued, portraying the process as a rubber-stamp dominated by the executive.
Hansaria further claimed that an application to stay appointments under the new law was filed earlier in 2024, and the Union "hurriedly" proceeded to avert a hearing. He emphasized that the challenge targets the Act's validity, not the appointees' credentials—both former IAS officers with unblemished records.
The bench, however, was unpersuaded by the motive allegation. Justice Datta interjected:
"Can you attribute any motive without showing us that the union knew about 15th being the date? When you want us to declare that something was activated by motive, you need to satisfy us that the union also knew that 15th is the date and that hence, it(selection) was brought forward to 14th."
Lacking evidence, Hansaria withdrew the point, with the judge noting,
"Let's leave it at that."
Bench's Sharp Remarks: A Mirror to Judicial Realities
Amid the repartee, Justice Datta's comment cut through:
"We can only say that we wish such speed is shown in the appointment of judges. Especially
judges."
This wry observation drew from the stark reality: As of
, over 400
vacancies persist, with some courts operating at 40-50% strength. The Collegium system, upheld post-NJAC, has faced executive delays in clearing recommendations, leading to backlogs exceeding 5 lakh cases nationwide.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, known for his robust views on constitutional governance, joined the bench in probing procedural lapses. The exchange not only deflected the haste argument but also spotlighted a judicial frustration shared by the bar—slow appointments exacerbate caseloads, delaying justice.
Analyzing the Constitutional Stakes
At its core, the petitions invoke Article 324's implied requirement for EC independence, arguing the 2023 Act skews the selection committee (2:1 executive majority) toward government control, violating the basic structure. Petitioners draw on Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where EC autonomy was deemed integral to free elections.
Legally, motive attribution requires evidence under administrative law principles ( State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh , 1980). The bench's skepticism aligns with this, refusing presumptions against the executive. Yet, the "absolute power" critique resonates: Does minimal LoP input suffice for collegiality?
Comparatively, the CEC's appointment remains unchanged (PM, LoP, CJI), but extending this to ECs could strengthen safeguards. For constitutional lawyers, a ruling striking the Act might mandate CJI inclusion, reshaping public law precedents.
Echoes of Judicial Vacancy Woes
The SC's lament amplifies a crisis: High Courts have ~35% vacancies, with at 70+ pending. Collegium resolutions gather dust at the Centre, citing "suitability." This mirrors EC haste—executive panels cleared names in days—fueling calls for reforms like fixed timelines ().
Stakeholders, including bar associations, urge fusion: Why not a hybrid for judges akin to the LoP-inclusive EC model? It risks politicization but promises efficiency.
Implications for Democracy and Legal Practice
A favorable ruling could bolster ECI credibility pre-2029 polls, deterring gerrymandering fears. For practitioners, it expands electoral litigation frontiers—challenges to administrative processes under .
Broader impacts: Reinforces institutional checks, urging Parliament to align laws with judicial ethos. Lawyers may see uptick in PILs on appointments (, directors next?).
Looking Ahead
Arguments continue, with live updates available. The bench's balanced scrutiny suggests a nuanced verdict—upholding procedural sanctity while eyeing systemic reforms. As India eyes electoral integrity, this case reminds: Speedy, impartial institutions are democracy's lifeblood.
(Word count: 1428)
