The Supreme Court of India recently faced a split verdict regarding the Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This decision, delivered on September 23, not only reflects the complexities within the court's structure but also underscores the pressing need for reform in how constitutional matters are handled. The case brought to light the challenges posed by an expanding workload, a fragmented Bench system, and significant delays in forming Constitution Benches, all of which have contributed to growing institutional difficulties.
The 2023 Appointment Law mandates that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed based on recommendations from a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. This new framework replaces the interim arrangement established in the case of Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023), which included the Chief Justice of India as a member of the selection committee. The shift in the appointment process has sparked debates about the constitutional implications of such changes.
- Article 145(3) Dispute — The Union government argued that the case presented substantial constitutional questions requiring a five-judge Bench. This claim was contested by Justice Dipankar Datta, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma supported it, leading to the matter being referred to the Chief Justice for a potential Constitution Bench.
- Judicial Fragmentation — The current structure of the Supreme Court, with its reliance on two-judge Benches for the majority of cases, has led to inconsistencies in legal interpretations across different Benches. This fragmentation poses challenges to maintaining a coherent legal framework.
- Impact of Delays on Elections — The lengthy judicial processes mean that by the time a ruling is made, the Election Commissioners appointed under the disputed law may have already conducted multiple elections, complicating any potential reversals of decisions.
Both judges acknowledged that the Chief Justice's role in the appointment committee was intended as a temporary measure until Parliament enacted formal legislation. However, the court's ruling extended beyond this interim arrangement, emphasizing the need for safeguards against executive dominance in the appointment of Election Commissioners. Justice Datta contended that the new statutory framework must adhere to established constitutional principles, while Justice Sharma highlighted the lack of prior authoritative decisions on the law's constitutional validity, warranting a Constitution Bench's review.
The Supreme Court has evolved significantly since its inception in 1950, now comprising a sanctioned strength of 38 judges. The reliance on two-judge Benches has resulted in a significant backlog of cases, particularly special leave petitions and ordinary appeals. This has led to Constitution Benches being formed only when judges are available, which can delay crucial constitutional interpretations for years. For instance, the Anoop Baranwal case, referred to a Constitution Bench in 2018, remained unresolved until its decision in 2023.
Looking ahead, there is a pressing need for institutional reforms within the Supreme Court to address these challenges. One proposed solution is the establishment of a permanent Constitution Bench dedicated to handling constitutional questions. The Law Commission's 229th Report in 2009 suggested a similar arrangement. Moreover, the current Master of the Roster system grants the Chief Justice significant control over Bench composition, which should ideally be governed by transparent and objective rules to ensure fair and efficient handling of cases.
