SC Refuses To Adjourn Hearing In 'More Important' Election Commission Selection Case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 6) came down heavily on the Centre over its request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from a committee responsible for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and the deputies. The court said the matter is "more important" than other matters.Notably, a bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre. Mehta told the top court to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case. “Let the other side start we had kept this matter for hearing . We shall

hear you some day later or come after 2 PM,” Justice Datta told Mehta. In response, mehta said, “Kindly keep it next week. I am stuck in the nine judge bench. I want to be present when the petitioners present their arguments.”“Let your associates take notes today. let the petitioners start. All matters are important. we read in the newspaper that there is an observation that the PIL in sabrimala 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.This matter is more important than any other matter,” Justice Datta replied.The bench hearing the matter also cited the CJI's oral remarks in Sabarimala case yesterday. “That (Sabarimala matter) may be important. But this matter is more important than any other matter. But in that case we read in newspapers that nine-judge Bench said the petition should not have been entertained in the first place,” the two-judge SC bench stated while rejecting Mehta’s plea. Notably, a nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths."Sorry Solicitor, We had clearly fixed today's date for this case": Justice Datta told SG Mehta.”“This (Pleas challenging new CEC, EC appointment rules) matter is more important than any other matter”, Justice Datta said, while refusing to adjourn hearing on SG Tushar Mehta’s request. SG had said that he was stuck in Sabarimala Bench. Meanwhile, the apex court asked petitioners to complete arguments by tomorrow and said that it would hear the SG's arguments on a later day. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria took the Court through the procedure provided in the Act which is challenged in this case.Earlier, on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions challenging the December 2023 act. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said.The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted. Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, a union minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the leader of the opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha). The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.