New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to adjourn hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 law on appointment of election commissioners, making it clear that the issue is “more important than any other matter”.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had sought an adjournment citing his busyness before a nine-judge Constitution bench dealing with cases related to religious freedom, including the Sabarimala temple issue.While dismissing the petition, Justice Dutta highlighted the importance of the case, saying, “This case is more important than any other case.” Commenting further on the priority of cases, he said, “We have read in the newspapers that there is a comment that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been considered by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges have been appointed to a case where there is a comment that it should not have been considered earlier.”“The bench allowed the petitioners to begin arguments and directed them to complete the arguments by Thursday, indicating that the Centre’s point would be heard later.At the center of the proceedings is the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law changed the composition of the selection committee by removing the Chief Justice of India and replacing him with a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.During the hearing, the Supreme Court also raised a fundamental constitutional question whether it can direct Parliament to make a law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners.Justice Dipankar Dutta pointed to the prayer in one of the petitions seeking such a direction and questioned its maintainability. He asked, “Coming back to the prayer… It has asked Parliament to make a law. Can the court ask Parliament to make a law? Can this be sustained?”The bench examined the issue in the context of its judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case on March 2, 2023, where a Constitution bench had prescribed a three-member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India as an interim mechanism.Justice Dutta emphasized that the decision was meant as a temporary arrangement to fill a legislative void. He said, “Then why did the court limit the Anup Baranwal decision only to a particular period till it became law? It was only to deal with a particular situation of void.”He further questioned whether the court’s detailed observations in that judgment could be considered binding on Parliament when making laws. “Are these observations of over 300 pages not a justification for what the court had set out to do in the short term until the law is made? Can you say that the law also has to follow those observations,” he said, adding that the judiciary cannot order Parliament to make laws in a specific manner.Presenting the opening arguments for the petitioners, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria argued that the 2023 Act gives undue dominance to the executive in the selection process. Referring to the composition of the panel, the Prime Minister, a Union Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, he said the composition effectively creates a “2-1” majority for the government.He described it as giving “primacy” to the executive and warned that it would turn the selection body into a “pocket board”, allowing the appointment of “the Prime Minister’s man”. Hansaria stressed that the current government has a direct stake in the election results and hence cannot have exclusive control over appointments.Citing the Constituent Assembly debates, he argued that there was a clear intention to ensure that elections were conducted by an independent authority “wrested out of the hands of the present government”.Responding to the bench’s suggestion that the 2023 decision was only a stop-gap arrangement, Hansaria said that although Parliament has the right to make laws, any such law must preserve institutional independence and not cede effective control to the executive.The arguments also touched on public confidence in the Election Commission, with Hansaria noting the criticism faced by election officials in recent days.Countering this argument, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that such arguments are flawed. “If abusive language is used against judges, should we remove the collegium system? What kind of logic is this?” he asked.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, also argued that the principles laid down in the Baranwal judgment – ​​particularly on limiting executive control – cannot be overridden by a common law and would require constitutional amendment.The challenge stems from an earlier Constitution Bench judgment in March 2023 that said appointments to the Election Commission would be made by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India, an arrangement that would remain in place until Parliament enacts a law.The petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms, have argued that excluding the judiciary from the process undermines the independence of the Election Commission.Earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant had recused himself from the case, saying, “I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest.”However, the Center has defended the law, saying the autonomy of the Election Commission does not depend on the presence of a judicial member in the selection panel. It also rejected claims that the appointment of two election commissioners in March 2024 was rushed to subject to judicial scrutiny, noting that the process followed the provisions of the new law.The Supreme Court had previously refused to put a stay on those appointments, even as it agreed to examine a broader constitutional challenge to the 2023 law.The Centre’s adjournment request comes in the backdrop of the ongoing proceedings before a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which is re-examining key questions related to religious freedom, including the Sabarimala temple issue.During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench made strong observations on the genesis of the 2006 PIL that ultimately led to the landmark judgment on Sabarimala. It remarked that at that time, the court should have “thrown in the dustbin” the petition filed by the All India Young Lawyers Association, noting that it was largely based on newspaper reports and lacked proper authority.The bench indicated that, at most, the court could have ordered a limited investigation into the alleged misconduct by the temple authorities rather than considering a broader constitutional challenge. It also questioned the circumstances under which the petition was put forward, with Justice Nagarathna expressing concern as to why a person who does not practice the faith was questioning long-standing religious practices.Read more: Supreme Court says original Sabarimala PIL should have been dismissed