A split verdict, faltering remedies and people’s power
The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding the constitutionality of the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. The case has been referred to a larger Constitution Bench, delaying a final decision on the executive-heavy selection committee.
Why it matters
The composition of the Election Commission is vital for democratic integrity, and this legal uncertainty impacts the perceived independence of India's electoral umpires.
In Dr. Jaya Thakur vs Union of India, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India was faced with a challenge to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). On September 23, 2026, the Court delivered a split verdict.
Justice Dipankar Datta held that, since a Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal (2023) had settled the constitutional position on the mechanism for selecting the CEC and the ECs, the challenge to the 2023 Act needed to be examined in light of the principles laid down in that judgment. The Baranwal approach is simple and straightforward: a committee with executive predominance cannot be entrusted with selecting impartial umpires such as the CEC and the ECs. A three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister and another Union Minister clearly demonstrates such executive predominance.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in