Archive · 23 Sep 2026
Justice Datta's Cricket Analogy Challenges Election Commissioner Appointment Law
Justice Dipankar Datta is a Supreme Court judge who also plays cricket.
During a case about choosing election officials, he compared them to cricket umpires.
He said people may doubt an umpire if one team gets to choose that umpire.
The law gives the government two members on the selection committee and the opposition one member.
It also replaced the Chief Justice of India with a minister chosen by the Prime Minister.
Datta said this could make the opposition member's role mostly symbolic.
The judges disagreed about whether a larger group of judges should hear the case.
They left that decision to the Chief Justice.
Datta also rejected a lawyer's description of how judges are appointed as a myth.
Justice Dipankar Datta compared election commissioners to cricket umpires while questioning the 2023 appointment law.
He said the government's 2-1 majority on the selection panel could cast doubt on commissioners' neutrality.
The law replaced the Chief Justice of India with a government-nominated minister on the selection committee.
Justices Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on whether the legal challenge should go to a Constitution Bench.
Datta, a regular judge-cricketer, also criticized the claim that judges appoint judges through the collegium system.
- Who
- Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma considered a challenge to the law governing appointments of India's Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
- What
- The court examined whether the challenge to the 2023 appointment law should be sent to a Constitution Bench.
- When
- Wednesday, as described in the article.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The challenge concerns the selection committee's composition, under which the Prime Minister and a minister nominated by him can outvote the Leader of the Opposition.
Neutrality Concerns
Government Position
Who should choose election officials?
Neutrality Concerns
Justice Datta argued that allowing the government to hold a 2-1 majority could make the Election Commissioners' impartiality doubtful, even when their decisions are correct.
Government Position
The law provides for a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, a minister nominated by him, and the Leader of the Opposition.
Judicial appointment comparison
Neutrality Concerns
Justice Datta rejected as a myth the government lawyer's assertion that judges appoint judges under the collegium system.
Government Position
The government lawyer invoked the collegium system while arguing before the court.
Larger constitutional hearing
Neutrality Concerns
Justice Datta's opinion supported consideration of whether the legal challenge required a Constitution Bench.
Government Position
The two judges disagreed on the issue, and the decision was left to the Chief Justice rather than resolved in their split opinion.
- Law under scrutiny
- The 2023 law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
- Selection committee
- The Prime Minister, a minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
- Justice Datta's concern
- He said the government would have a 2-1 majority and the opposition leader's role would be ornamental.
- Previous arrangement
- The law replaced the Chief Justice of India, described as a neutral party, with a government-nominated minister.
- Judicial decision
- Justices Datta and Sharma delivered a split opinion and left the Constitution Bench question to the Chief Justice.
- Cricket record
- Datta scored 44 runs from 27 balls in a 2023 T20 match against senior advocates at Mumbai's Wankhede Stadium.