Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said on Wednesday that he would examine a fresh plea and decide what should happen next.
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether it should reconsider an earlier order that could send the challenge to India’s election commissioner appointment law to a five-judge bench.
Parliament later passed a law creating a different selection committee. The Chief Justice of India is not part of that committee. This affected the selection process of CEC and ECs which impacted free and fair elections.
Because the case could be decided using legal principles already laid down by the Supreme Court, justice Datta said a larger bench was not needed. In March 2023, a five-judge Supreme Court bench had said that, until Parliament made a law, appointments should be made on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Under the 2023 law, the panel includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Cabinet minister chosen by the Prime Minister. Earlier reporting noted: The petitions had challenged the validity of the act on the ground that it violated the 2023 judgment of the top court in Anoop Baranwal by replacing CJI in the selection panel with a Union minister. Earlier reporting noted: Sherstra said that the fact about justice Sharma’s son being engaged as an ECI counsel became known from news reports that surfaced two days after the September 23 order was delivered.
Justice Sharma took a different view and said the case involved important questions about the Constitution that should be heard by at least five judges. Earlier reporting noted: “We will examine and take a call,” the CJI said, when the application was mentioned for urgent hearing by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Vishal Sinha.
“We will examine and take a call,” the CJI said after senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan asked for an urgent hearing. This fact was not disclosed while the Supreme Court was hearing the case, according to the plea. The Supreme Court was also told that another petitioner has filed a separate curative petition. Sankaranarayanan said that petition could be dealt with separately and that the present application was specifically asking for recall of the earlier order.
