Archive · 24 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Splits Over Larger Bench for Election Law
The Supreme Court was deciding whether a bigger group of judges should hear a case about how election officials are appointed.
The case challenges a law passed in 2023.
The law creates a committee made up of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
It does not include the Chief Justice of India.
The petitioners say this could give the government too much control over appointments.
The Centre asked for the case to be sent to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Justice Dipankar Datta opposed that request, while Justice Satish Chandra Sharma supported it.
Because the judges disagreed, the Chief Justice of India must decide what happens next.
The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench delivered a split verdict on Wednesday.
The case concerns petitions challenging the 2023 law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the Centre’s request to refer the petitions to a Constitution Bench.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma supported referring the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The issue will now go before the Chief Justice of India, who will decide on assigning or constituting a larger bench.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, the Centre, and petitioners including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Jaya Thakur.
- What
- A two-judge bench delivered a split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 election-commissioner appointment law should go to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
- When
- Wednesday; the court had reserved its judgment on July 30, 2026.
- Where
- The Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- Why
- The petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the 2023 law, while the Centre sought referral to a larger bench and the petitioners opposed that request.
Against Immediate Larger-Bench Referral
For Larger-Bench Referral
Whether the petitions should be referred
Against Immediate Larger-Bench Referral
Justice Dipankar Datta rejected the Centre’s plea for referral. The petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms and Jaya Thakur, also opposed the reference and sought a hearing on the merits.
For Larger-Bench Referral
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said he could not accept Justice Datta’s observations or reasoning and concluded that the matter deserved consideration by a Constitution Bench. The Centre sought this referral.
Effect of the 2023 appointment mechanism
Against Immediate Larger-Bench Referral
The petitioners argue that the case should proceed on its merits and challenge the law’s constitutional validity.
For Larger-Bench Referral
The Centre’s request was for the issue to be considered by a larger Constitution Bench; the articles do not state the Centre’s detailed reasoning beyond that request.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma
- Law challenged
- Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023
- Selection committee
- Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha
- Justice Datta’s view
- Rejected the request for referral to a Constitution Bench
- Justice Sharma’s view
- Supported consideration by a Constitution Bench
- Next step
- The Chief Justice of India will decide on assigning or constituting a larger bench
