SC split on CEC EC law sparks call for permanent bench

A two judge bench delivered a split verdict on September 23, 2026, with Justice Dipankar Datta finding no need for a reference to a larger bench and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma urging a five judge Constitution Bench^35,21. The matter will be placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant to decide on a bench of appropriate strength and to avoid delay in deciding the challenge to the 2023 law^35,37.

The central issue is whether the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners should be chosen by a panel that includes a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, a leader of opposition, and the Prime Minister themselves^9,3. Justice Datta stressed that elections require an Election Commission that is independent and seen to be so, warning that a minister in the panel can create a veto and undermine public trust in the EC^7,16.

Sharma argued the questions are significant enough to be referred to a larger bench, saying the issues involve constitutional interpretation never settled before, and he asked that a permanent five-judge bench be explored to decide such questions quickly^2,36. The judges highlighted the broader risk to institutional independence and the public perception of neutrality, which many view as essential to free polls, as the case competes with the pace and clarity of constitutional rulings in a crowded docket^10,34.

The outcome signals ongoing tension between executive influence and judicial independence, with scrutiny shifting to how quickly a formal bench can be set up and how voters will view the process^32,21.