
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge to the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners should be heard by…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge to the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners should be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed, with Justice Datta saying a two-judge bench could examine its validity, while the other judge favoured a reference. A three-judge bench will now decide the next step.

The petitions, filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and Congress leader Jaya Thakur among others, challenge the 2023 Act that excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Union cabinet minister, and the Leader of the Opposition. The Hindu reports petitioners argue the law threatens the independence of the Election Commission, while the Times of India notes Justice Datta countered the Centre's argument against the collegium system, calling the perception that 'judges appoint judges' a myth.
The Times of India foregrounds Justice Datta's critical remarks on the law and the government's own arguments, while Hindustan Times and India TV report the procedural split neutrally. The split itself leaves the law's validity unresolved, but the central issue, whether excluding the CJI from the selection panel undermines the basic structure, will now land before a three-judge bench. That bench's decision on the referral is the immediate next step to watch.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): hindustantimes.com (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), indiatvnews.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.