Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Centre tells court judicial member on panel is a policy choice, not a necessity

The Union told the court the Constitution does not require a judicial member on the selection committee, that elections were never compromised under seven decades of executive appointments, that the link between executive appointment and loss of independence is speculative, and that the petitions should be dismissed. Attorney General Venkataramani later argued the Baranwal directions were interim Article 142 measures.

TNIE reports the submission was made 'on Friday' (15 May 2026), but the judgment lists 14 May as a hearing day; month precision used. The counter-affidavit was not opened.

• TIER 3 · PRESSCentre tells SC judiciary need not be part of EC selection panel, defends law removing CJIThe New Indian Express2026-05-16
• TIER 1 · PRIMARYDr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters, 2026 INSC 1040: opinions of Datta J and Sharma J and common orderSupreme Court of India (PDF hosted by Supreme Court Observer)2026-09-23
• TIER 2 · RESEARCH/FILINGECI Appointments Act, 2023 | Day 4: Bench considers reference to a larger benchSupreme Court Observer2026-05-14