On Wednesday, March 13, the Supreme Court announced its decision to hear petitions challenging the appointment process of Election Commissioners under the new Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 (Act) on March 15.

Petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Dr. Jaya Thakur, the general secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee, were brought before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, MM Sundresh, and Bela M Trivedi.

Yesterday, when Bhushan initially brought up the plea on behalf of ADR for urgent listing, Justice Khanna advised the Counsel to adhere to the proper procedure by submitting a mentioning slip. Today, Justice Khanna announced that the petitions are scheduled for a hearing on Friday.

The recent development follows closely after Election Commissioner Arun Goel's resignation and the anticipated formation of a high-level selection panel, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to fill the upcoming vacancies in the Election Commission by March 15.

The petitioners have submitted interlocutory applications requesting the Union to promptly appoint a new member of the Election Commission in compliance with the ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). This decision mandates that appointments to the positions of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be made by the President, following advice from a committee comprised of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.

ADR's public interest litigation, under Article 32 of the Constitution, specifically contests Section 7 of the Act, alleging its infringement upon Article 14 and the fundamental tenets of the Constitution. This section delineates the appointment procedure, stipulating that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of a selection committee.