NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to adjourn hearings on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law on the appointment of election commissioners, making it clear that the issue was “more important than any other matter”.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down a request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who sought an adjournment citing his engagement before a nine-judge Constitution bench dealing with matters related to religious freedom, including the Sabarimala Temple issue.Refusing the plea, Justice Datta highlighted the weight of the matter, stating, “This matter is more important than any other matter.” He further remarked on the prioritisation of cases, saying, “We read in the newspapers 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.”The bench allowed the petitioners to commence arguments and directed them to wrap up submissions by Thursday, indicating that the Centre would be heard subsequently. At the heart of the proceedings is the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law altered the composition of the selection committee by removing the Chief Justice of India and replacing the position with a union minister nominated by the Prime Minister.The challenge stems from an earlier Constitution bench ruling in March 2023, which had laid down that appointments to the Election Commission would be made by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, an arrangement meant to operate until Parliament enacted a law.Petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, have argued that excluding the judiciary from the process undermines the independence of the Election Commission.Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant had recused himself from the case, observing, “I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest.”The Centre, however, has defended the law, asserting that the autonomy of the Election Commission does not depend on the presence of a judicial member in the selection panel. It also rejected claims that the appointment of two election commissioners in March 2024 was rushed to pre-empt judicial scrutiny, noting that the process followed the provisions of the new law.The Supreme Court had earlier declined to stay those appointments, even as it agreed to examine the broader constitutional challenge to the 2023 legislation.The adjournment request by the Centre came in the backdrop of ongoing proceedings before a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which is revisiting key questions around religious freedom, including the Sabarimala Temple issue.During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench made strong observations on the origins of the 2006 PIL that eventually led to the landmark Sabarimala verdict. It remarked that the court, at the time, ought to have “thrown in the dustbin” the petition filed by the All India Young Lawyers Association, noting that it was largely based on newspaper reports and lacked proper locus standi.The bench indicated that, at best, the court could have ordered a limited inquiry into alleged misconduct by temple authorities instead of entertaining a wider constitutional challenge. It also questioned the circumstances under which the plea was pursued, with Justice Nagarathna raising concerns over why individuals not adhering to the faith were questioning long-standing religious practices.Read more: Original Sabarimala PIL should’ve been binned, says Supreme Court
