New Delhi: Supreme Court Wednesday agreed to examine a plea seeking recall of its recent split verdict on whether challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.
On September 23, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma gave split opinions on whether a batch of pleas challenging the validity of a 2023 law that excludes the Chief Justice of India from the panel for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.
It had said due to a difference of opinion, the matter be placed before CJI Surya Kant on the administrative side for constitution of a bench of appropriate strength for an effective and authoritative adjudication.
On Wednesday, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was told about the recall application by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
“We will examine and take a call,” the CJI said. Sankaranarayanan told the bench that the recall application had earlier been mentioned before a bench headed by Justice Datta, but the matter had subsequently been released from that bench and he was asked to mention it before the CJI.
“There is a split verdict on the Chief Election Commissioner issue. We have mentioned an application for recall of the judgment,” the senior advocate said.
When the CJI asked whether there was any other interlocutory application (IA), Sankaranarayanan said that a curative petition had also been filed, but added that the recall application was a separate plea.
“A curative petition has been filed. That, I think, will have to go in its own form. Whether it is maintainable, I don’t know. Ours is an IA seeking recall of the judgment. Curative often requires a review,” he said.
The development comes after a two-judge bench of Justices Datta and Sharma delivered split opinions on September 23 on the Centre’s plea seeking reference of the challenge to the 2023 law to a larger Constitution Bench.
Justice Datta declined the Centre’s request for such a reference, while Justice Sharma favoured placing the matter before a larger bench.
