The Lift Line
“Otherwise, the gravest questions facing the republic will continue to be answered only once the answers have ceased to matter.”
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
Suhrith Parthasarathy, an advocate practising in the Madras High Court, writes in The Hindu’s lead article of 3 October 2026 on the split verdict of 23 September on the law governing appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs). It is an excellent case study for Article 145(3), Article 141, Article 324 and the structure of the Supreme Court.
GS Paper 2: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary; appointment to constitutional posts; separation of powers.
Background and Context
The appointments law.
| Stage | Detail |
|---|---|
| Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (background ruling, 2 March 2023, five judges) | Until Parliament legislated, the CEC and ECs were to be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India |
| CEC and Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 | Selection committee: Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM; a search committee headed by the Law Minister prepares a panel |
| Challenges filed | Early 2024; hearings began in May 2026 |
| Split verdict (23 September 2026) | Justice Dipankar Datta held two judges could decide; Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held a Constitution Bench was needed; both referred the papers to the CJI |
The provisions at stake.
| Article | Content |
|---|---|
| 145(3) | A minimum of five judges for any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, or an Article 143 reference |
| 141 | Law declared by the Supreme Court binds all courts |
| 324(2) | The President appoints the CEC and ECs, subject to any law made by Parliament |
The Analysis
1. What triggers Article 145(3). Following State of Jammu and Kashmir v Thakur Ganga Singh (1959) and PUCL v Union of India (2003), a question of interpretation arises only when parties advance rival constructions of a provision. Importance or novelty is not enough.
2. Settled law, new statute. Anoop Baranwal read Article 324 to require insulation from exclusive executive control, a binding rule under Article 141. Whether a two-to-one executive majority meets it is application, not interpretation, as Justice Datta held. Two-judge Benches decided Shreya Singhal (2015) and NALSA (2014).
3. A court of many voices. The Court sat in January 1950 with six judges (eight sanctioned). It now has 38 and sits mostly in pairs on special leave petitions. Drawing on the scholar Nick Robinson, the writer describes it as not one court but many.
4. Delay creates facts on the ground. By the time the challenge is decided, commissioners appointed under the law will have overseen many elections.
5. A permanent Constitution Bench, with rules. The Law Commission’s 229th Report (2009) proposed a Constitution Bench in Delhi with regional Benches for appeals. The CJI could create one now, but its composition needs transparent, pre-set, bright-line rules, and Benches must honour stare decisis.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
The Court:
- Article 145(3): at least five judges for substantial questions of constitutional interpretation and Article 143 references.
- Sanctioned strength as of 2026: 38 including the CJI, raised from 34 by an ordinance of 16 May 2026 and an Act assented on 11 August 2026.
- The CJI is the Master of the Roster: allocates cases and constitutes Benches.
- Law Commission, 229th Report (2009): Constitution Bench in Delhi, cassation Benches in four regions.
The appointments law:
- Anoop Baranwal (the background ruling): 2 March 2023, five judges; PM, LoP and CJI as an interim committee.
- 2023 Act: PM, LoP and a Cabinet Minister select; Law Minister-led search committee shortlists.
- Split verdict: 23 September 2026, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.
⚠️ Watch the trap: Article 145(3) sets a minimum of five judges for constitutional questions; it does not require a Constitution Bench for every challenge to a new law. An Article 143 advisory reference also needs five.
The Debate
For the writer’s view. Article 145(3) is triggered by a genuinely disputed reading of the Constitution, not by novelty; settled principles can be applied by regular Benches, and delay lets answers arrive after they cease to matter.
The other side. A law answering a Constitution Bench judgment, on the independence of a constitutional body, deserves the authority of five judges.
The balanced verdict. Decide quickly what Article 145(3) truly requires, and build a standing Constitution Bench so that the answer to “two or five?” never costs years.
How to Think About This
Structure explains outcomes. When asked why the Court is slow or inconsistent, look past individual judgments to design: Bench size, listing power, docket composition and precedent discipline.
Diagram-in-Words
Takeaway Box
- Event: split verdict, 23 September 2026, on the 2023 CEC appointments law.
- Article 145(3): five judges only for genuine disputes on constitutional interpretation.
- Court: 38 judges; mostly two-judge Benches; CJI is Master of the Roster.
- Fix: a permanent Constitution Bench (Law Commission 229th Report), formed by transparent rules.
Sources: The Hindu, SCC Online on the 2026 judges’ strength Bill, CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023 (SC Observer)
Source: A Court Divided by Its Own Architecture: Article 145(3) — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
