NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its decision in the case concerning the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs), with the court now expected to decide whether petitions challenging the 2023 law governing their selection should be referred to a five-judge bench. Defending the law before the court, the Centre argued that it would be wrong to presume that the Prime Minister and a Union minister would act with “bad intentions” or against democracy simply because they hold a numerical majority in the selection committee. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, questioned the argument that the Prime Minister’s role in the selection process should itself raise concerns. He asked whether, if the Prime Minister’s decision could not be trusted, a similar requirement would have to be introduced while choosing members of the Union Cabinet, requiring consultation with a former judge or an outside person.

Justice Datta responded that the issue before the court was not about whether the Prime Minister could be trusted. He said there was no question of the court refusing to place trust in the Prime Minister and recalled that the Supreme Court had previously expressed confidence that people with criminal backgrounds would not be inducted as ministers. The larger concern, the bench indicated, was the independence of the Election Commissioners and whether the composition of the selection committee should also visibly demonstrate impartiality. Justice Datta observed that the court was not saying the present committee had failed to achieve fairness, but pointed to the numerical structure of the panel — two members on the Prime Minister’s side and one representing the Opposition. The observations have brought the focus back to the composition of the selection committee and whether the process provides sufficient institutional safeguards while appointing officials who are expected to function independently while overseeing elections in the country.

The dispute centres on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which was passed by Parliament in December 2023 and received presidential assent on December 29 that year. Petitioners challenging the law have argued that it goes against the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment because the Chief Justice of India was excluded from the process for appointing the CEC and Election Commissioners. Under the 2023 law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. If there is no recognised Leader of Opposition, the leader of the largest Opposition party in the Lok Sabha becomes part of the panel. The controversy largely revolves around this change in the composition of the committee and the removal of the CJI from the appointment mechanism. With arguments now heard, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision on whether the challenge to the law requires consideration by a larger five-judge bench. The outcome will be closely watched because the case deals directly with the appointment mechanism for the Election Commission, one of the country's key constitutional institutions, and the broader question of how independence and visible impartiality should be maintained in the selection process.

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Delhi government to ensure medical treatment for protesters injured during the July 20 Parliament march from Jantar Mantar, while also ordering the Centre to preserve records related to weapons and ammunition used by the Rapid Action Force during the demonstration. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing petitions concerning the alleged use of pellet guns against protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party's march. The court, however, declined for now to impose a blanket ban on pellet guns, observing that police may use such weapons in specific situations under the existing framework. The bench said it would be difficult to prohibit their use without a direct challenge to the police rules that permit such weapons. At the same time, the Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on guidelines governing the use of pellet guns and directed that records concerning RAF weapons and ammunition deployed during the Jantar Mantar protest be kept safe.

The petitions were filed by former IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad and alleged victims Prashant Kumar Singh and Sheikh Irshad Mansoori, who sought a ban on pellet guns. They claimed that the RAF used pellet guns against students during the July 20 march. The issue has remained controversial since the protest, with allegations surrounding the type and extent of force used by security personnel. According to the details presented, more than 100 people were injured during the clashes, including protesters and police personnel. The CJP had called for a march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament, with the demonstration continuing from around 8 am until 5 pm and witnessing repeated confrontations between protesters and security forces. Some demonstrators allegedly broke barricades and moved towards Parliament through Parliament Street, Janpath, the War Memorial area, Kartavya Path and Vijay Chowk. Police and Rapid Action Force personnel resorted to crowd-control measures as the situation deteriorated, including lathi-charge and tear gas. Images of stone-pelting also emerged later in the evening, while protesters alleged that pellet guns had been fired at students. Police cleared Jantar Mantar by around 5 pm, but CJP supporters reportedly returned to the protest site around 11 pm and resumed their demonstration.

The case has also brought wider attention to the rules governing the use of pellet guns in India. Pellet guns are not completely prohibited in the country. According to the framework described in the petition-related material, law-enforcement agencies operate under guidelines and standard operating procedures for the use of such less-lethal weapons in crowd-control situations. The stated approach is that police should first use methods considered less likely to cause serious injury when dealing with a breakdown of law and order. Weapons such as pellet guns are meant to be considered only when other measures fail to bring a violent crowd under control, and their use should remain proportionate to the situation. Security personnel are also expected to take precautions to minimise injuries to civilians and fellow personnel. Thursday's Supreme Court directions do not amount to a finding that the RAF unlawfully used pellet guns during the July 20 protest. The allegations and circumstances surrounding their reported use remain before the court. By directing preservation of weapons and ammunition records and seeking the Centre's response on the guidelines, the bench has ensured that material connected with the security operation remains available while the matter is examined further.