No reason to doubt PM: Govt defends Election Commissioner appointment in SC

The government has strongly defended the current appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners by a three-member committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, telling the Supreme Court that there was "no reason to doubt" the PM's role in the selection process.The government argued that constitutional courts cannot proceed on the assumption that the executive would act against democratic values. It further added that questioning the selection committee would amount to doubting both Parliament's legislative wisdom and the constitutional trust reposed in elected institutions."The office of the Prime Minister has a sanctity attached to it," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court. He added, "If his decision is not to be trusted, then why not have a provision that even while selecting his Cabinet he must consult some former judge or outsider?"The submissions were made before a bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, which reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The 2023 Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection committee, giving the ruling government a two-thirds majority in the appointment process.GOVT SEEKS REFERENCE TO CONSTITUTION BENCHThe government urged the Supreme Court to refer the matter to a constitution bench, arguing that the petitions involve substantial questions relating to the interpretation of Article 324 of the Constitution -- which deals with the appointment of Election Commissioners -- and Parliament's legislative powers on the matter. Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that the earlier constitution bench judgment directing that the selection committee should comprise the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice itself raises constitutional issues that require authoritative determination by a larger bench.According to the government, if the 2023 Supreme Court verdict were treated as occupying the entire field, Parliament would effectively have no authority to legislate on the issue.'PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE HAS SANCTITY'Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the 2023 judgment merely directed an interim arrangement and did not lay down a binding constitutional requirement that the Chief Justice must be part of the selection committee.He submitted that the petitions raise several constitutional questions, including whether Parliament's law under Article 324 can be invalidated merely because it does not include an "outsider" such as the Chief Justice in the selection committee, whether Parliament's legislative power is subject to implied constitutional limitations and whether courts can presume bad faith on the part of constitutional authorities while examining legislation.Mehta argued that a court cannot begin with the assumption that the Prime Minister or the executive would act against democratic values."The office of the Prime Minister has a sanctity attached to it," he submitted.Questioning the argument for including the Chief Justice in the panel, Mehta said that if the Prime Minister's decision could not be trusted, then by the same logic, "even while selecting his Cabinet he must consult some former judge or outsider."He further argued that holding the statutory committee to be inadequate would amount to doubting Parliament's legislative wisdom as well as the constitutional trust reposed in elected institutions."My question is whether one organ of the State can presume that the Prime Minister and other ministers would act in bad faith, would not act in the interest of democracy and would not act in furtherance of constitutional principles because they have a numerical majority," Mehta submitted.SUPREME COURT STRESSES FAIRNESS, NOT DISTRUSTThe bench, however, clarified that the issue was not about distrusting the Prime Minister but about ensuring fairness and public confidence in appointments to the Election Commission.Responding to the government's submissions, Justice Dipankar Datta observed, "Why wouldn't we trust the Prime Minister? Of course, we would trust the Prime Minister."He added that the question before the Court concerned institutional fairness rather than distrust."Election Commissioners have to be independent. Should there not be a show of fairness?" Justice Datta observed, indicating that the issue was whether the appointment process visibly reflected the principles of fairness and impartiality.The bench also repeatedly questioned whether the matter necessarily required an immediate reference to a constitution bench before being heard on merits.The petitions argue that the 2023 Act effectively nullified the constitution bench ruling by replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister on the appointment committee.The law was enacted only a few months after the Supreme Court's judgment, which had directed that appointments be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted an appropriate law.After hearing detailed submissions from both sides, the Supreme Court reserved its order on the preliminary issue of whether the challenge to the 2023 law should be referred to a larger constitution bench. Justice Dipankar Datta also permitted both sides to file written submissions on the issue of reference.- EndsPublished On: Jul 31, 2026 12:37 IST