Does the pro tem committee directed in Anoop Baranwal cease once Parliament enacts a law under Article 324(2)?

Constitution of India — Art.145(3) — Art.324(2) — Art.141 — Art.142 — Supreme Court Rules, 2013 — Order XXXVIII — Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 — s.7 — Reference To Larger Bench — Unsettled Question Of Constitutional Interpretation — (Interim order — the two Judges differ on the reference; the papers are placed before the Chief Justice of India.) Constitution of India — Art.145(3) — Reference To Larger Bench — Unsettled Question Of Constitutional Interpretation — Held: In one Judge's opinion, a reference under Article 145(3) needs a question of law, substantial in nature, as to interpretation of the Constitution which remains unsettled. Applying settled principles to a new statute does not amount to such a question. (¶79, 85, 86) Constitution of India — Art.324(2) — Art.142 — Anoop Baranwal — Interim Arrangement Worked Itself Out — Held further: On that Judge's purely prima facie view, independence of the ECI from exclusive executive control is binding. The three-member committee was an interim arrangement under Article 142 that worked itself out once the 2023 Act was enacted. (¶61, 64) Constitution of India — Art.145(3) — Difference Of Opinion — Papers Before Chief Justice — Held further: The other Judge would refer the petitions to a Constitution Bench of not less than five Judges. Given the difference, the papers go before the Chief Justice of India, and the petitions may be placed for hearing subject to his order. (¶89)