Supreme Court judges urge CJI to consider permanent Constitution Bench

This case involves a cluster of writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, specifically arguing that the appointment mechanism violates Articles 14 and 324 of the Constitution.

Who it concerns: Petitioners: Dr. Jaya Thakur, Gopal Singh, Naman Sherstra, Association for Democratic Reforms, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and Lok Prahari. Respondents: Union of India. Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Court heard arguments from May 6, 2026, to July 30, 2026.
• The Attorney General and Solicitor General requested the Court to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench of at least five judges under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.
• The petitioners objected to the reference, arguing it was a delay tactic and that the issue required only the application of settled law from Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
• The Court reserved its order on the petitions.

Also in the document

• The Attorney General raised the plea for a reference to a larger Bench after the matter had been pending for approximately two years.
• The petitioners argued that the 2023 Act effectively seeks to legislatively overrule the binding precedent set in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).
• The Court noted that the primary challenge is to Section 7 of the 2023 Act, with subsidiary challenges to Sections 64 and 8(2).