‘Judges appoint judges’ is a myth: SC split over CEC appointment law, differences over Constitution Bench referral | India News
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge to the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners should be considered by a Constitution Bench.Under the law, the selection panel comprises the Prime Minister, a Union cabinet minister and the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha.Justice Dipankar Datta countered the Centre’s argument against the collegium system for appointing judges, saying the perception that “judges appoint judges” is a myth.Justice Datta also said that there was no need to refer the case to the constitution bench and a two-judge bench can examine its validity.READ ALSO: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/differing-views-normal-part-of-deliberation-ec-responds-after-report-flags-rift-over-sir/articleshow/134429923.cmsLast month, underscoring the need for an independent and impartial process for selection of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, Supreme Court said Election Commission must not only act independently but must also be seen to act independently. The court questioned why Parliament, while framing the law, decided not to include Chief Justice of India in the selection panel.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said the CJI was part of selection panels for CBI director and Lokpal, and asked what could be the reason for excluding him from the process of selecting CEC and ECs — posts that are among the most important for a democracy. The court reserved its verdict on the Centre’s plea that the matter be referred to a constitution bench.The court is hearing challenges to the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act, under which CEC and ECs are appointed by President on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of PM, leader of the opposition, and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by PM. SG Tushar Mehta argued that the court could not begin with an assumption that the PM would act against democratic principles.
