Supreme Court questioned the disparity between swift election commissioner appointments under 2023 law versus prolonged judicial appointment delays. Justices noted election commissioners were appointed within 24 hours in March 2024, while high court judge positions remain vacant for months. The court is hearing petitions challenging the 2023 Act that replaced Chief Justice of India with Union Cabinet minister in EC selection panel. Petitioners argue this undermines Election Commission independence by giving executive dominance, reverting to pre-Anoop Baranwal conditions.

The Supreme Court's observation highlights a systemic inconsistency in constitutional appointment processes. The 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act replaced the CJI-led panel mandated by the Anoop Baranwal judgment with a committee comprising Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and a Union Cabinet minister. This legislative change sparked constitutional debates about institutional independence versus executive efficiency. The March 2024 appointments of Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu exemplify the new system's speed - 200 candidates shortlisted to final appointments within 24 hours. However, this efficiency contrasts sharply with judicial appointments, where high court vacancies persist for months despite established collegium procedures. The constitutional tension lies between ensuring independent institutions and enabling functional governance. Petitioners argue the 2023 law creates potential for executive interference in election oversight, while defenders claim it provides democratic accountability through parliamentary involvement. The court must balance constitutional principles of separation of powers with practical governance needs, determining whether the new law maintains sufficient independence safeguards for the Election Commission's constitutional mandate.