Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta on Wednesday (September 23, 2026) agreed that the replacement of the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the Prime Minister-led selection panel for Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) prima facie amounts to an “effective veto” in favour of the Union government and fails the “perception test”, sending wrong signals to the public.
The 2023 Act, passed within months of the judgment, had replaced the Chief Justice with a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The inclusion of a Cabinet Minister did indeed not pass the perception test. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, argued that the Prime Minister ought to be the last authority to distrust.
The petitioners had contended that the 2023 Act “defeated” a Constitution Bench judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which had constituted a selection panel chaired by the Prime Minister and including the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Justice Datta said the petitioners’ apprehension “prima facie appears to have substance” and at least cannot be dismissed as “fallacious metaphors”. After all, Justice Datta said, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Minister shared a “collective responsibility” under Article 75(3) of the Constitution, and worked together in the government. “Inclusion of a Minister fails to provide an independent countenance,” Justice Datta observed. The judge said the Minister’s place in the selection panel would largely be “ornamental”. During the hearings, the apex court questioned the absence of even “one absolutely neutral person” on the Prime Minister’s committee and said it would send wrong signals to the public. Justice Datta had said the question was not about “lack of faith” in the Prime Minister, but about the principle of “justice not only being done, but shown to be done”.
