Justice Satish Chandra Sharma · ECI Files

21 Mar 2024RESPONSERESPONSESNOT YET CHECKED

Centre tells court meeting was moved to 14 March before stay pleas were listed

Replying to entry commissioners-event-2024-03-14-chowdhury-dissent

In its reply to the stay applications, the Union of India set out the timeline from 1 February and said the selection meeting was moved from 15 to 14 March on 9 March, before the court listed the stay applications for 15 March. It said the Act was made as Article 324(2) contemplates.

Attributed to Union of India (conjoint reply to stay applications)

Tushar Mehta

The reply as recorded in the court's order does not address why names were circulated only on the day of the meeting.

CHARGE AND ANSWER

Charge: Adhir Chowdhury records dissent: 212 names overnight, six-name shortlist minutes before

Responses: Centre tells court meeting was moved to 14 March before stay pleas were listed

What the record shows: Adhir Chowdhury asks for shortlisted candidates' profiles; receives 200-plus names, Court refuses stay citing Lok Sabha election, but criticises selection procedure

The Union's reply was filed against a duplicate of this entry that has since been merged into it. The record documents Chowdhury's 12 March request for profiles and the Supreme Court's 21 March order, which refused a stay and commented on the selection procedure.

See all charges and answers →

FilingPart of the case: Challenge to the 2023 appointments Act →

SOURCES

TIER 1 · PRIMARYDr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2024 and connected matters, order on stay applications, 2024 INSC 246Supreme Court of India (PDF hosted by Supreme Court Observer)2024-03-22

Objections and decisions