Supreme Court: Justice Sharma Refers EC Appointment Law Validity to Larger Bench

Whether parliament was justified in omitting a neutral member from the panel appointing Election Commissioners is an important question arising for the first time before the Supreme Court, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed on Wednesday [Dr. Jaya Thakur & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.].In his separate opinion favouring the Centre’s stance that the matter be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench, Justice Sharma held that the issues concerning parliament’s law-making powers under Article 324(2) of the Constitution raises a substantial question of law that could not be decided by a two-judge Bench.Justice Dipankar Datta, who delivered a non-concurring opinion, had strongly rejected Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s comparison between the executive’s role in the Election Commission selection process and the judicial Collegium system.Justice Datta had described the phrase “Judges appointing Judges” as a myth, noting that the executive exercises decisive control over judicial appointments and that the judiciary is left “playing second fiddle”. He held that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anoop Baranwal had already established the need to insulate the Election Commission from exclusive executive control, making a reference to a larger Bench unnecessary.Justice Sharma, however, offered a different reading of the Solicitor General’s submissions. He clarified that, in his understanding, the Centre was neither challenging the Collegium system nor se