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

India, Japan sign agreement in quantum technology, health research cooperation

New Delhi: India and Japan on Wednesday strengthened their cooperation in emerging technologies and health research, with the two countries exchanging agreements in the field of quantum science and medical devices during a high-level bilateral meeting in New Delhi.Onoda Kimi, Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy and Space Policy of Japan, along with a high-level delegation, met Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh to discuss cooperation in cutting-edge technologies including quantum science, artificial intelligence, health research and advanced computing.The meeting saw the exchange of Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) in health and medical devices between Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Department of Science and Technology (DST). A Letter of Intent (LOI) on cooperation in quantum science and technology was also signed between the Cabinet Office of Japan and DST.The Ministry of Science and Technology said the partnership aims to advance the India-Japan strategic partnership in “science, technology and innovation” with a “strong focus on emerging and critical technologies”.Addressing the gathering, Dr Jitendra Singh said, “India and Japan share a natural synergy in science and technology. While Japan brings advanced technological capabilities, India offers a vast pool of talented human resources. Together, we can accelerate innovation in frontier areas and translate research into impactful social outcomes.”He said India’s growing focus on deep tech areas through national missions in “quantum technologies, cyber-physical systems, electric mobility, clean energy and advanced computing” is creating opportunities for “joint research, co-development and industrial partnerships”.The ministry said the discussions were also based on the outcomes of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Japan in August 2025, where the two countries agreed to expand cooperation under the India-Japan Science, Technology and Innovation Partnership.Speaking during the conversation, Onoda Kimi lauded India’s “rapid economic growth and its strong commitment to innovation,” particularly the “large-scale adoption of artificial intelligence across all sectors.”He also said that his association with Indian academic institutions “reflects a strong culture of resilience among young researchers with the ability to learn from failure and continue to innovate.”According to the ministry, the Japanese side highlighted that the country’s strengths in “advanced manufacturing and computational technologies, including quantum and AI” closely match India’s growing technology ecosystem.The two sides also discussed cooperation under India’s National Quantum Mission, which covers areas such as quantum computing, communications, sensing and secure communication networks. Japan shared insights from its Quantum Innovation Hub and expressed interest in connecting them with Indian institutions.The discussions also covered researcher mobility programmes, joint innovation platforms and industry internships for Indian researchers in Japan, aimed at strengthening academic and industrial partnerships between the two countries.The ministry said the two countries agreed to deepen engagement through “researcher-to-researcher collaborations, institutional partnerships and industry ties” to further strengthen India-Japan cooperation in science, technology and innovation.

New Delhi: The Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM on Wednesday claimed that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) “goons” attacked and vandalized the statue of communist icon Vladimir Lenin in Murshidabad district, where the saffron party’s Gauri Shankar Ghosh had won the assembly elections by over 30,000 votes.The party said it filed a police complaint, leading to five arrests, and vowed to reconstruct the statue on May 8.“On the night of May 5, in Jiaganj area of ​​Murshidabad district, BJP goons attacked and vandalized a statue of Lenin. Our comrades responded immediately and lodged a police complaint. A demonstration was held, following which five were arrested. This morning, our comrades again visited the site. The statue will be rebuilt on May 8,” the party posted on Twitter.Vladimir Lenin was a Russian revolutionary who led the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and founded the Soviet Union, becoming one of the most influential communist leaders. He had tremendous influence in West Bengal politics under the CPM rule, which was overthrown by TMC’s Mamata Banerjee in 2011 after three decades.The mega turnaround was repeated on May 4 when the BJP, similarly, demolished the ruling Trinamool by winning 207 seats in the 294-seat Bengal Assembly with a vote share of 45.8 per cent.Since the decision, violence has been witnessed across the state, with at least four people killed, dozens injured and party offices vandalized as rival cadres of the Trinamool Congress and BJP clashed in several districts overnight.There is news of two deaths in Kolkata within 24 hours. In Beleghata, 45-year-old Trinamool poll agent Biswajit Patnaik was found lying in a pool of blood at his doorstep after walking out after a phone call. Police suspect that he was chased, tried to run across the rooftops and fell, although his family alleges that he was dragged out and beaten.In 2018, two Lenin statues were pulled down in South Tripura just days after the Left’s defeat in the assembly elections by the BJP and its ally IPFT, which together commanded a two-thirds majority in the House in the state where the CPI(M) had been in power for 25 years.A five-foot-tall fiber glass statue of Lenin was toppled in Belonia, while a smaller statue in Sabroom was vandalized two days earlier.