The Supreme Court on Thursday asked if there had been a proper debate in Parliament about the ethos of its 2023 judgment on the appointment of Election Commission members. The court had introduced a participatory appointment process involving a three-member selection committee, but the Union government later brought in a law that replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the selection committee.

The court's question was prompted by submissions from senior advocates, including Shadan Farasat and Prashant Bhushan, who argued that the passing of the law had been preceded by the suspension of Opposition MPs, limiting the opportunity for a proper debate.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the ability to remove a Chief Election Commissioner by impeachment was not a sufficient safeguard to protect the independence of the Election Commission, and that appointments to the top poll body should be independent and transparent.

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the case, with the next steps expected to involve further arguments from the parties involved. The court's inquiry into the legitimacy of the parliamentary debate surrounding the enactment of the law is likely to have significant implications for the independence of the Election Commission and the integrity of India's electoral process.