{
  "id": 9451841,
  "title": "Why is the 2023 Election Commissioner appointment law controversial, and why did SC refer it to CJI?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/24/why-is-the-2023-election-commissioner-appointment-law-controversial",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-24T00:31:31.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Indian Express",
    "slug": "the-indian-express",
    "url": "https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/cec-appointment-law-supreme-court-constitution-bench-explained-10891151/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "On Wednesday, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred petitions challenging the 2023 law on the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to consider forming a larger bench. The bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, disagreed on the best course of action but ultimately decided that the issue should be placed before the CJI.\n\nThe two judges, after discussing the long delays in resolving Constitutional references, emphasized the need for a permanent five-judge bench to handle such crucial Constitutional matters, citing the Anoop Baranwal case as an example. This case took eight years to reach a final judgment and served as a source of institutional embarrassment.\n\nThe 2023 law in question was enacted after the Supreme Court's Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India ruling in March 2023. The original ruling noted that Parliament had yet to establish a law governing the appointments to the Election Commission, even though Article 324 of the Constitution envisioned one. The court suggested an interim mechanism, where the appointment would be made by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, until a law was passed.\n\nHowever, the 2023 law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The government argued that the two representatives on the selection committee, alongside the Leader of Opposition, were sufficient. Justices Datta and Sharma disagreed on whether this replacement complies with the principle established in the Anoop Baranwal ruling, which emphasized that appointees to the Election Commission must be insulated from executive influence.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}