LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 23 September 2026

Must the Election Commission of India be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointing the CEC and the ECs?

DR. JAYA THAKUR AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
2026 INSC 1040 · WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 14 OF 2024
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Art.145(3) Constitution of India📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The Election Commission of India must be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointing the CEC and the ECs.

Yes. Precedents have laid down that free and fair elections are a basic feature of the Constitution and that the ECI should be insulated from exclusive executive control in appointments of the CEC and the ECs; that declaration is binding on all courts, and what remains is the application of settled principles to the challenge to the 2023 Act, on the merits of which no opinion was expressed.

Headnote

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)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 64What follows from a reading of Anoop Baranwal (supra) is that the declaration of independence of the ECI being integral to free and fair elections and that the process has to be independent of exclusive executive control, is binding on all courts and, in no unclear terms, animates how Article 324(2) is to be interpreted by the constitutional courts. However, constitution of the pro tem committee as an interim arrangement has to be seen as an exercise of this Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution as a pro tem measure. Once the 2023 Act was enacted, the interim arrangement of including the CJI in the process of selection of the CEC and the ECs worked itself out.
Paragraph 88In the further considered opinion of this Court, the justification for a reference cannot be sustained merely by repackaging an existing constitutional principle in a seemingly new factual or legislative setting. Hence, this Court holds as under: A. The prima facie opinion expressed hereinabove is confined to consideration of the prayer for a reference and does not entail any expression qua the merits of the final challenge laid in the petitions before this Court. B. Precedents having laid down in unmistakable terms that free and fair elections are a basic feature of the Constitution and that the ECI should be insulated from exclusive executive control in relation to appointments of the CEC and the ECs, what remains is no more than the application of the settled principles of law to the facts of the case and a decision on the challenge, as laid. C. Thus, neither any constitutional bar nor a precedent precludes hearing of these petitions by the present Bench. D. Accordingly, the defenders’ prayer for a reference to a larger Bench is rejected for the foregoing reasons.
Acts & Sections
Art.145(3) Constitution of IndiaArt.324(2) Constitution of IndiaArt.141 Constitution of IndiaArt.142 Constitution of Indias.7 Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of DR. JAYA THAKUR AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does a reference to a Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) require an unsettled substantial question of law?Does the pro tem committee directed in Anoop Baranwal cease once Parliament enacts a law under Article 324(2)?Must the Election Commission of India also be seen to act independently?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections