# Split verdict on EC appointments law referred to Constitution bench 2026-09-23T21:27:29+00:00 | Governance | Indian Opinion Desk Corroboration: 3 independent outlets A Supreme Court division bench delivered a split verdict on Wednesday on whether the challenge to the 2023 law on appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be referred to a larger bench. Justice Dipankar Datta found a reference unnecessary, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that substantial constitutional questions required a five-judge bench. The two judges jointly agreed to forward the case to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution bench for early adjudication. Justice Datta, in his separate opinion, said replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Cabinet minister in the selection panel gave the executive "overwhelming" power and reduced the Leader of Opposition's role to "ornamental". Barandbench reports Justice Sharma took a different view, framing the question as whether rules under Article 324 could be declared invalid merely because they resulted in executive dominance. The judges also requested the CJI to consider a permanent five-judge bench for constitutional issues, citing delays. ## Indian Opinion Analysis The split verdict exposes a fundamental disagreement over whether judicial oversight of election appointments is a constitutional necessity or a legislative choice. Justice Datta, as The Hindu and Times of India report, framed executive dominance as undermining democratic faith, while Justice Sharma, per Barandbench, treated the act as a valid parliamentary exercise unless proven otherwise. Both sources agree on the facts, the difference is in emphasis, critical versus deferential. The Constitution bench now holds the final word on whether the 2023 Act passes the basic structure test. Its ruling will shape how India appoints its election umpires. The CJI must now schedule the hearing. ## Coverage - barandbench.com (neutral report) Led with procedural details of Justice Sharma's opinion without editorialising - timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report) Led with the split verdict and referral process, balanced quotes from both judges - thehindu.com (government critical) Opened with Justice Datta's 'perception test' framing, emphasised institutional erosion - timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report) Led with the split verdict and referral process, balanced quotes from both judges Tags: Anoop Baranwal case, Election Commission, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court Canonical: https://indianopinion.org/split-verdict-in-supreme-court-over-ec-appointment-law-challenge/ License: Summary and commentary (c) Indian Opinion, reusable with attribution. Facts belong to the linked sources. Cite: https://indianopinion.org/split-verdict-in-supreme-court-over-ec-appointment-law-challenge/#story-in-brief