On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to expedite the hearing of multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of a new law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). This came a day after Gyanesh Kumar was appointed as the next CEC despite opposition from the Congress party.

Kumar, a Kerala cadre Indian Administrative Service officer from the 1988 batch, who served as the cooperation ministry secretary before his appointment as an election commissioner last year, was named the CEC late Monday night by President Droupadi Murmu. His appointment followed the recommendation of a selection committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, though the selection was contentious. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition and a member of the selection panel, objected to the timing of the meeting, citing the ongoing case in the Supreme Court.

Kumar’s appointment is the first under the new law passed in December 2023, which followed a May 2023 Constitution bench ruling in the Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India case. The ruling mandated that CEC and EC appointments should be made by a panel consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India, ensuring transparency in the process. This decision was made in the absence of specific legislation for such appointments.

As the court proceedings began on Tuesday, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing one of the petitioners, urged for an urgent hearing. While the case was scheduled for Wednesday, Bhushan argued that it was too far down the list and requested that it be heard first. He emphasized the importance of the case for democracy, claiming the appointments violate the Constitution bench’s judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case.

Advocate Varun Thakur, representing another petitioner, supported Bhushan’s plea, noting that the last three appointments to the Election Commission occurred while the challenge to the law was still pending. The bench reminded Thakur that the Supreme Court had previously rejected a plea to stay the 2023 law, and therefore the matter must be heard in full.

Bhushan asked Justice Surya Kant to direct the court registry to list the case earlier. While Justice Kant did not issue a formal order, he indicated that the bench could take up the case out of turn on Wednesday.

The petitions argue that the 2023 law contradicts the May 2023 Constitution bench judgment, which outlined the process for appointing the CEC and ECs, a process the government must follow.

In its March 2023 ruling, the Constitution bench pointed out that, prior to the law, the 1991 Transaction of Business Act was used for appointments, but it lacked objective criteria. The new law, passed in December 2023, departs from the judgment by excluding the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee. The law establishes a Union law minister-led search committee to propose candidates, which critics argue undermines the independence of the Election Commission.

Several parties, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur, NGOs like the Association for Democratic Reforms, Lok Prahari, and PUCL, have filed petitions claiming the law infringes on the separation of powers. They argue that the exclusion of the CJI from the selection panel and the law’s provisions undermine the principle of free and fair elections, which is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

The petitions also challenge the law for allowing the executive to dominate appointments to the Election Commission, arguing it breaches the principle of an independent selection process. The court has already dismissed requests for a stay on the law, although it issued a notice on the matter.

The Supreme Court on Monday postponed the hearing on multiple petitions challenging the validity and enforcement of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, to the first week of April, citing a lack of quorum. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, presiding over a two-judge bench, emphasized that the case requires a three-judge bench, leading to its adjournment. He also noted the increasing number of petitions related to the Act.

At the start of the proceedings, senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing one of the petitioners, sought clarification on whether the matter would be addressed that day. CJI Khanna responded, “It won’t be taken today. It’s a three-judge bench matter. We are in a two-judge bench today.”

Jaising pointed out that the framing of issues in the case was still pending, to which CJI Khanna stated that this task would also be undertaken by a three-judge bench. Tentatively, he suggested that the case would be heard “sometime in March.”

When a lawyer mentioned filing a new petition, CJI Khanna remarked, “There’s a limit to how many new petitions can be admitted. We will see…” Later in the day, the court scheduled the next hearing for the week of April 1, citing the growing number of petitions making the case “unmanageable.” The bench clarified that all fresh petitions would be dismissed, but petitioners could file applications raising new grounds in the ongoing case.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, and MR Shamshad appeared for parties opposing advocate Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition. Upadhyay had originally challenged the Act in 2020, arguing that it discriminates against Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist communities by freezing the religious character of places of worship as they stood on August 15, 1947, except for the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, which was already under litigation at the time. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union government.

When it was pointed out that the government had yet to submit its affidavit, the court noted, “Everyone says they are not raising new grounds… Maybe that is why [the affidavit is yet to be filed].”

The 1991 Act has become a contentious issue in both legal and political debates. Hindu litigants argue that it violates fundamental rights by restricting their ability to reclaim places of worship allegedly altered during historical invasions. BJP leaders, including Subramanian Swamy and Ashwini Upadhyay, have been vocal critics, calling for its repeal. In contrast, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Muslim groups like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have defended the Act, arguing that it is essential for maintaining communal harmony and India’s secular fabric.

In January, Owaisi filed a petition advocating for the strict enforcement of the Act. The Congress, in a recent application, opposed challenges to the Act, describing it as a “cornerstone of secularism” and accusing petitioners of attempting to undermine constitutional principles. In November, RJD lawmaker Manoj Jha filed an intervention application, asserting that the Act does not violate fundamental rights.

On December 12, a special three-judge bench, led by CJI Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, issued an order barring lower courts from entertaining fresh lawsuits or conducting religious character surveys of places of worship. This ruling came amid increasing litigation by Hindu groups seeking surveys of mosques such as the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura. The Supreme Court’s directive effectively halted proceedings in nearly 18 cases, which had sparked communal and political tensions.

The Union government was granted four weeks to clarify its stance on the Act, but its response has been pending for over two years, even as petitions continue to grow. The Supreme Court admitted pleas challenging the Act in March 2021.

With the case now deferred to March, attention will focus on how the Supreme Court frames the legal issues and whether the Union government finally submits its response, which could significantly impact the future of the 1991 Act and the broader legal battle over places of worship in India.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticized the practice of announcing freebies before elections, stating that such measures discourage people from working as they receive free rations and financial aid, according to news agency PTI.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih voiced its disapproval while hearing a case concerning the right to shelter for homeless individuals in urban areas.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Justice Gavai remarked that the distribution of freebies has led to a decline in willingness to work. “Unfortunately, because of these freebies, people are not willing to work. They are receiving free rations and financial assistance without any effort,” he stated.

The bench further emphasized the need to integrate homeless individuals into mainstream society, allowing them to contribute to the nation’s progress. “We appreciate your concern for them, but wouldn’t it be more beneficial to make them part of mainstream society and enable them to contribute to national development?” the judges noted.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the court that the Centre is finalizing an urban poverty alleviation mission, which includes provisions for homeless shelters. In response, the bench asked the attorney general to specify the timeline for implementing the initiative. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in six weeks.

Additionally, the Supreme Court addressed a plea regarding Rohingya refugees’ access to public hospitals and schools. The court emphasized that no child should face discrimination in education and has scheduled a hearing on the matter for next week.

Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, strongly opposed the University Grants Commission (UGC) draft regulations on Thursday, arguing that the proposed rules for appointing teachers and academic staff in universities and colleges were an effort to impose a singular narrative of history, tradition, and language across India.

Gandhi accused the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of attempting to erase diverse histories, cultures, and traditions in the country.

“That is their starting point and ultimate goal. They attack the Constitution because they want to enforce one singular idea—one history, one tradition, one language—on this country,” the former Congress president stated while addressing a protest organized by the DMK’s student wing at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

According to him, the changes in state education systems were yet another attempt to further the RSS agenda.

“Every state has its own traditions, history, and language. That is why the Constitution defines India as a ‘Union of States’—it signifies that these diverse elements come together to form India. We must respect and acknowledge all languages, cultures, traditions, and histories,” Gandhi added.

Referring specifically to Tamil Nadu, he emphasized that the Tamil people have their own distinct history, language, and struggles.

“Imposing such regulations is an insult to the Tamil people and to all other states where the RSS is attempting to establish its dominance,” he said.

The Congress party has denounced the draft UGC regulations as “draconian and anti-Constitutional,” demanding their immediate withdrawal.

Criticizing the central government, the party argued that the justification of aligning the regulations with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was flawed and called for an immediate rollback.

Congress’ INDIA bloc ally, the Samajwadi Party, also criticized the central government and the RSS. Party chief Akhilesh Yadav accused them of attempting to centralize power at the expense of state governments.

“They want to turn politicians into mere servants of industrialists. We cannot support this new education policy. I stand with the students and their decision. I oppose NEP and the BJP,” Yadav asserted.

Meanwhile, Congress general secretary in charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, highlighted that a conclave of State Higher Education Ministers was held in Bengaluru, hosted by Karnataka minister MC Sudhakar. Representatives from six opposition-ruled states—Karnataka, Telangana, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand—adopted a 15-point resolution opposing the UGC’s proposed regulations, branding them “draconian.”