Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Appointment Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu And Vivek Joshi
A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition, filed by Suri Payala under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks writs of quo warranto against the three members of the Election Commission of India. The plea alleges that their appointments were not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
A writ of quo warranto is sought to require a person holding a public office to demonstrate the legal authority under which the office is being held. The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to declare the posts vacant if it finds that the appointments were made without lawful authority.
The challenge covers the March 14, 2024 notifications through which Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were appointed Election Commissioners. It also challenges the February 17, 2025 notification through which Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner and Vivek Joshi was appointed Election Commissioner.
At the centre of the challenge is the procedure followed by the Search Committee and Selection Committee under the 2023 law.
The petitioner alleges that when two Election Commissioner vacancies arose in March 2024, the Search Committee recommended only six names for consideration instead of preparing a panel of five names for each vacancy.
According to the plea, this would mean that the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the 2023 Act was not followed. The petition also points to the fact that Kumar and Sandhu were selected on the same day on which the six names were recommended.
The petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court’s March 2024 proceedings concerning the appointment process. During those proceedings, the court had examined the requirements surrounding the preparation of the panel and had emphasised the importance of providing complete information about candidates to members of the Selection Committee.
The petition also questions whether the three appointees satisfied the eligibility requirements under Section 5 of the 2023 Act.
The law requires a candidate to have held or previously held a post equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India and to be a person of integrity with knowledge of and experience in the management and conduct of elections.
The petitioner claims that the publicly available service records of Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi do not specifically identify assignments involving the management or conduct of elections.
In Kumar’s case, the petition refers to his Executive Record Sheet, which reportedly lists 26 postings but does not classify any of them as election-related. The petitioner has also questioned whether his earlier administrative positions demonstrated the specific election-management experience required by the 2023 Act.
Similar questions have been raised regarding Sandhu and Joshi. Their official service profiles list several senior administrative positions, but the petitioner says the records available publicly do not specifically identify previous assignments involving election management or conduct.
The petition, however, acknowledges that information about election-related assignments not reflected in publicly available service records could be held by the Union government or the Election Commission.
A separate challenge has been raised against Kumar’s elevation from Election Commissioner to Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025.
The petitioner argues that the statutory requirements under Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the 2023 Act had to be independently followed when Kumar was elevated to the position of CEC.
According to the plea, this should have included a fresh consideration of candidates and compliance with the prescribed selection procedure rather than treating Kumar’s earlier appointment as an Election Commissioner as automatically sufficient for his elevation.
The petition also questions the process through which Vivek Joshi was selected to fill the vacancy created after Kumar’s elevation.
It alleges that the Selection Committee’s procedure should have been established and followed transparently before the selection was made and seeks production of the original records relating to the Search Committee and Selection Committee proceedings for both 2024 and 2025.
The petitioner has also referred to Right to Information applications filed in September and October 2026 seeking records concerning the appointments. According to the plea, the requested information had not been provided when the petition was filed.
As interim relief, the petitioner has sought preservation and production of the original appointment records. The plea has also sought safeguards for future appointments, including advance disclosure of the Search Committee’s criteria, preparation of an appropriate panel for each vacancy and recording of the reasons underlying the final selection.
The petition raises several constitutional and statutory questions, including whether the requirement of a five-name panel applies separately to each vacancy, whether the Selection Committee must establish its procedure before making a selection and whether the statutory requirements must be complied with afresh when an existing Election Commissioner is appointed as Chief Election Commissioner.
It also raises the question of whether a writ of quo warranto can be sought against the holders of the offices of CEC and Election Commissioners in light of the constitutional framework governing their appointment and removal.
The challenge comes at a time when the Election Commission is facing increased public and political scrutiny over its functioning and decisions relating to electoral rolls.
However, the allegations contained in the petition remain the petitioner’s claims and have not been judicially established. The filing of the plea does not by itself invalidate the appointments or establish that any of the three officials are ineligible to hold office.
The Supreme Court is yet to decide the substantive issues raised in the petition. The court’s consideration will determine whether the alleged procedural departures from the 2023 Act warrant further judicial intervention and whether the appointment records should be examined in detail.
The case could have wider implications for the interpretation of the 2023 law and for the procedures governing appointments to the Election Commission, particularly concerning transparency, eligibility and the role of the Search and Selection Committees.
