The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Union government’s request to adjourn a hearing challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma characterized the matter as “more important than any other matter,” dismissing a plea for postponement by the Solicitor General.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had requested an adjournment on the grounds that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case. The bench declined the request, noting that the date had been fixed in advance and instructed the petitioners to commence their arguments immediately. Justice Datta remarked that the court would hear the Solicitor General at a later time or during an afternoon session if necessary.

The legal challenge centers on the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection committee with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Petitioners argue this shift undermines the independence of the Election Commission of India by granting the executive a majority on the three-member selection panel.

The case follows a March 2023 landmark verdict where the Supreme Court had directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and other senior judges have previously noted potential conflicts of interest in the current legislative framework.

The court has directed the petitioners to complete their arguments by Thursday. The bench is expected to hear the government’s response on a separate date to be determined following the conclusion of the petitioners' submissions.