More Important Than Any Other Matter: Supreme Court refuses to adjourn hearing on EC appointments law

The Supreme Court refused to defer hearing on the 2023 law governing election commissioner appointments, calling it “more important than any other matter” and directing petitioners to complete arguments swiftly.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday declined the Centre’s request to postpone hearings on petitions challenging the law governing the appointment of election commissioners. The bench stressed that the issue deserved immediate attention over other listed matters.

A bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s plea for adjournment, which was sought due to his involvement in proceedings before a separate Constitution bench.

Centre Strengthens Apex Court: Number of judges in SC to be increased from 33 to 38

Bench Calls Issue ‘More Important’

While refusing the request, Justice Datta underlined the urgency of the matter, stating that it was “more important than any other matter.” The court allowed petitioners to begin arguments, suggesting that government representatives could take notes and respond later.

The bench also directed petitioners to conclude their submissions within a fixed timeline, ensuring swift progress in the case.

What the 2023 Law Says

The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Under the current framework, the selection committee includes:

• The Prime Minister
• A Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
• The Leader of the Opposition (or the largest opposition party leader)

Notably, the law excludes the Chief Justice of India from the panel.

SC denies TMC’s plea over counting supervisors; A setback for Mamata Banerjee ahead of Bengal poll results

Core Concern: Independence of Election Commission

Petitioners, including Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, argue that removing judicial oversight could weaken the independence of the Election Commission.

They have contended that the presence of the Chief Justice of India ensures transparency and balance in appointments to such a critical constitutional body.

The Centre, however, has defended the law, maintaining that the independence of the Election Commission does not depend on including a judicial member in the selection process.