'This Matter More Important' : Supreme Court Refuses Union's Adjournment Request In Plea Challenging Election Commissioners' Law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request made by the Union Government to adjourn the hearing of the petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta requested a two-judge bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta to adjourn the hearing, saying that he was occupied with the Sabarimala reference hearing before the 9-judge bench.

Justice Datta then referred to the comments made by the 9-judge bench yesterday that the PIL seeking entry of women in Sabarimala temple should not have been entertained in the first place. Justice Datta seemed to indicate that the present matter is more important, as the 9-judge bench reference arose out of a PIL which was not maintainable in the first place.

"Let your associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspaper that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta told the SG.

"This matter is more important than any other matter," Justice Datta added.

Though the Solicitor General repeatedly urged the bench to adjourn the hearing, the bench, also comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, did not relent. The bench stated that the petitioners may commence arguments today, and the Union may commence theirs on another day.

The bench asked the petitioners to complete the arguments by tomorrow.

The petitions, filed by Dr. Jaya Thakur, NGOs Association for Democratic Reforms, Lok Prahari, etc., challenging the Election Commissioners' Act passed in December 2023, a few months after the Supreme Court in March 2023 ruled that ECs should be appointed by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India till a law is enacted. The Court passed this direction to ensure that the ECs are appointed in an independent manner, free of influence by the executive. The Court had clarified that its judgment will operate till Parliament enacts a law governing the appointments of ECs.

According to the Act, Election Commissioners are selected by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha.

The petitioners argue that the scheme of the Act is contrary to the Supreme Court judgment's intent and spirit, as the appointment mechanism does not ensure that independent ECs are appointed.

In March 2026, CJI Surya Kant had recused from the hearing, as the petitioners are challenging the removal of the CJI from the selection panel. The CJI observed that the matter will be heard by a bench which will not have either the CJI or any future CJI.

The petitioners have started their arguments. Live updates can be followed here.

Case no. - W.P.(C) No. 14/2024 Diary No. 146 / 2024 and connected cases

Case Title - Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India and connected cases