The Supreme Court’s observations centered on the historical "legislative vacuum" that existed under Article 324(2) of the Constitution. For over seven decades, Parliament failed to enact a specific law for EC appointments, allowing the executive to maintain exclusive control. Justice Datta notably invoked the term "tyranny of the unelected"—a phrase often used by politicians to criticize judicial overreach—and countered it by labeling the government’s long-standing monopoly over poll panel appointments as the "tyranny of the elected."

The bench’s frustration stemmed from the fact that a law was only passed in December 2023 after the Court’s intervention in the Anoop Baranwal case. In that 2023 judgment, the Court had temporarily mandated a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, the new Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister, effectively restoring a 2-1 majority for the executive.

The Court also noted the striking "urgency" shown by the government in recent appointments. In March 2024, two Election Commissioners were shortlisted and appointed within a single day. Justice Datta remarked with a touch of irony that the Court "wished judges were appointed with the same speed" as Election Commissioners, highlighting the contrast in how the executive handles judicial vs. administrative vacancies.

The petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), argue that the 2023 Act undermines the "fierce independence" required of the ECI. They contend that by excluding the CJI, the government has ensured it can appoint a "yes man" to a body that must remain a neutral referee in a democracy. The Court noted that whoever is in power tends to seek similar control, calling it "most unfortunate for the country."

As the hearing concluded, the bench emphasized that while Parliament has the power to make laws, those laws must align with constitutional morality. The case has been adjourned until next week, where the Centre is expected to defend the validity of the Act. This battle remains a defining moment for the future of Indian elections, as the judiciary weighs the "will of the majority" against the "sanctity of the ballot."