A two-judge Supreme Court bench gave differing opinions on whether to send the challenge to the 2023 Election Commissioners appointment law to a Constitution Bench, and urged setting up a permanent five-judge bench for such matters.

BulletsIn

• A Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on September 23, 2026, on referring the case to a larger bench.
• The case challenges the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
• The Union government had sought a reference to a larger bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, after the bench reserved its verdict on July 30, 2026.
• Justice Datta rejected the government's plea for a larger-bench reference, while Justice Sharma held that the matter involved a substantial question of law needing one.
• The 2023 Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the three-member panel selecting the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
• Petitioners cited the Constitution Bench ruling in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India, which had mandated the CJI's inclusion in an interim selection panel pending a parliamentary law.
• Justice Datta, in his prima facie observations, compared the panel to a cricket umpire picked by one team's captain, saying it carries a "patina of suspicion" even if its decisions are correct.
• Because of the split, the matter will now go before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to decide on constituting a bench of appropriate strength.
• The bench also asked the CJI to consider setting up a permanent five-judge Constitution Bench to decide constitutional matters, citing years-long delays in larger-bench references.
• The Supreme Court had earlier, in March 2024, declined to stay the operation of the 2023 Act while the constitutional challenge remained pending.