Citation: Dr. Jaya Thakur and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. along with connected writ petitions, 2026 INSC 1040
A split verdict by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India regarding whether petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 (specifically concerning the selection committee’s composition) should be referred to a larger 5-judge Constitution Bench. Justice Dipankar Datta held that no reference was necessary because the constitutional principles regarding free and fair elections are already settled, whereas Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that a reference to a Constitution Bench was mandatory since the validity of the 2023 Act has never been authoritatively decided. Due to this difference of opinion, the judges directed that the case papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate Bench.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court cannot reach a consensus on whether a challenge to a new statute affecting foundational constitutional bodies requires a 5-judge Constitution Bench referral under Article 145(3) when previous general principles are already settled, necessitating the Chief Justice of India to decide the constitution of a larger Bench.
Several public-spirited individuals and civil society organizations filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The primary challenge targeted Section 7 of the 2023 Act, arguing that the composition of the Selection Committee—which includes the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition—gives the executive dominant control and violates the foundational principle of an independent Election Commission established in earlier rulings like Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India.
During the hearings, the Attorney General and Solicitor General argued that the matter raised a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution and should be referred to a 5-judge Constitution Bench under Article 145(3). Conversely, the petitioners strongly opposed a reference, contending that the law on free and fair elections and institutional independence is already settled, meaning the 2023 Act merely needed to be tested against existing standards. Because the two judges on the Bench (Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) disagreed on whether a formal reference was legally required, they ultimately referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench.
