New Delhi: In a compelling observation highlighting the need for institutional independence, Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta has drawn a sharp cricket analogy to critique the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs).
The remarks were made during a Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the 2023 legislation, which altered the selection committee for top election body officials. Under the new law, the three-member selection panel is chaired by the Prime Minister and includes a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha.
Emphasising the necessity for an independent and impartial Election Commission, Justice Datta questioned the fairness of a selection process dominated by the ruling government. “If the batting team chooses the umpire, questions regarding impartiality will always remain,” he observed. “Even if the umpire makes the right decision, his impartiality will be shrouded in doubt. Such an umpire will always be suspected of being loyal to that team.”
Justice Datta asserted that the appointment process for Election Commissioners must be entirely free from such situations to ensure that their autonomy and neutrality are never in doubt. He further noted that the mere inclusion of a Cabinet Minister instead of a neutral selector fails to provide the requisite independent balance in the process.
“If the Prime Minister’s choice is decisive, then the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in the selection committee largely becomes a mere formality,” Justice Datta added, concluding that the 2023 law does not appear to ensure an independent selection process.
Interestingly, Justice Datta’s use of a cricket metaphor aligns with his well-known passion for the sport. Legal circles recognise him as an avid cricketer who, even at 61, actively participates in matches, including representing the CJI XI team as a prominent batsman.
The hearing concluded with a split verdict between Justice Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on whether the matter should be referred to a larger Constitution bench, leaving the future of the 2023 appointment law subject to further judicial scrutiny.