New Delhi, March 20 – Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant recused himself from hearing a group of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Terms of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023, which excludes the CJI from the process of appointing top officials of the Election Commission.
At the outset, CJI Kant observed that since the issue concerns the role of the Chief Justice of India, it would be appropriate for him not to hear the matter to avoid any apprehension of bias.
"It would be better if this matter is assigned to another Bench. If I hear the case, someone might raise an allegation of bias," the CJI said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, suggested that the matter be assigned to a Bench that does not include any prospective Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Taking note of the submission, CJI Kant said that the case would be assigned to a Bench where the judge is not a prospective CJI, so that "nobody can say anything".
The apex court accordingly directed that the matter be listed on April 7 before a Bench to be separately constituted.
The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee tasked with appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs).
In March 2023, a Constitution Bench had directed that appointments to the Election Commission of India (ECI) be made by the President on the advice of a three-member panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, as an interim measure until Parliament enacted a law.
Subsequently, Parliament enacted the 2023 legislation providing that the selection committee would comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party), and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, thereby excluding the CJI.
Several petitions have been filed before the apex court contending that the exclusion of the CJI undermines the independence and transparency of the appointment process, and seeking directions to set aside the law.