In a move underscoring the judicial system’s ongoing challenges, the Supreme Court of India has urged the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to establish a permanent five-judge Constitution Bench. This recommendation aims to address the prolonged pendency of constitutional cases, a concern openly recognized by the Court on Wednesday.
The call for a dedicated bench came from a panel comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma. The justices made their observations while delivering a split decision on the Indian government’s request to refer petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, to a larger bench. This Act notably modifies the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners by replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister.
The petitioners, opposing the government’s request, highlighted the Supreme Court’s history of delays in resolving cases referred to larger benches. The bench acknowledged the validity of these concerns, stating, “The petitioners seem justified in saying references remain pending for years. Undisputedly, this is an area of great concern. Self-introspection indeed is required. We request the CJI to consider appointing a permanent 5-judge bench for deciding constitutional cases.”
During the proceedings, the Union government had invoked Article 145(3) of the Constitution, seeking a larger bench to deliberate on the substantial questions of law raised by the 2023 Act. This led to a divergence in opinion between the two justices.
Justice Dipankar Datta dismissed the government’s plea for a referral and offered a preliminary view on the contested Act’s legitimacy. In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma contended that the matter involved significant legal questions that necessitated examination by a larger bench.
Given the opposing views, the panel has directed the matter to be presented before the Chief Justice of India to assess the necessity of forming a Constitution Bench to determine the law’s vires.
The Supreme Court’s split verdict highlights the critical need for a streamlined approach to constitutional adjudications, as the bench continues to navigate the complex legal landscape surrounding the 2023 Act’s implications.
