Supreme Court challenges appointment of election commissioners including Gyanesh Kumar
The petition demands a quo warranto writ against all three commissioners.
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petitioner alleges that the appointments did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Tenure) Act, 2023. The petition seeks the issuance of a 'quo warranto writ' against the three, asking them by what legal authority they continue to hold their positions.
According to a report by Live Law, Surya Payala has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges the notifications issued on March 14, 2024, through which Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were appointed as Election Commissioners. Additionally, questions have been raised regarding Kumar's appointment as Chief Election Commissioner and Joshi's appointment as Election Commissioner under the notification dated February 17, 2025.
The petitioner states that,
the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 8(1) of the law were not complied with in these appointments. Citing Section 6, they argued that the search committee should have prepared a panel of five individuals for each vacant position. However, when two positions for Election Commissioners became vacant in March 2024, the committee suggested only six names for both positions.
In this regard, the petition mentions the Supreme Court's order dated March 22, 2024. In a case challenging the law of 2023, the court stated that,
according to Section 6, there should be ten names for two vacancies. The court expressed concern over the hurried process and also stated that appointments should be made only after providing the selection committee members with complete details of the candidates.
According to the petition, on March 13, 2024, the Secretary of the Legislative Department sent a list of over 200 individuals to the Leader of the Opposition, while the search committee had not yet prepared its final list. The next day, the committee suggested six names, and on the same day, the selection committee selected Kumar and Sandhu. The petitioner has raised the question of whether these six names can be considered a 'panel' prepared in accordance with Section 6.
Questions have also been raised regarding the eligibility of the candidates. According to Section 5, the person appointed should be serving or have served in a position equivalent to that of a Secretary of the Government of India. Additionally, they should be of integrity and possess knowledge and experience in the management and conduct of elections. Section 8(1) directs the selection committee to determine its process in a transparent manner.
The petitioner claims that,
there is no specific responsibility related to the management or conduct of elections recorded in the official profiles and executive service details of Gyanesh Kumar and Sandhu prior to their appointments. Kumar's service details record 26 transfers, but none are classified as election-related duties.
Gyanesh Kumar served as the District Collector of Ernakulam, but this posting is recorded under the category of land revenue management and district administration. According to the petitioner, public records do not clarify whether Kumar was appointed as a District Election Officer, election observer, or in any other election-related role.
A similar argument has been made regarding Sandhu. His official profile lists positions such as District Magistrate, Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India, and Secretary of the Lokpal. However, the petitioner states that none of these mention any responsibility related to election management.
In the case of Vivek Joshi, the petition mentions positions such as Chief Secretary of Haryana, Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, and Secretary in the Financial Services Department and the Department of Personnel and Training. According to the petitioner, his public profile also does not record any election-related responsibilities. However, it has been acknowledged that information about such appointments outside public records may be available with the central government and the Election Commission.
Challenging the appointments made in 2025, the petition states that the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner from Election Commissioner and Joshi's appointment required independent compliance with Sections 5 to 8. This includes preparing a new panel and adopting a transparent selection process. The selection committee meeting took place on February 17, 2025, and Kumar's appointment became effective from February 19. Joshi was selected in the same meeting to replace him.
The petitioner has demanded the original records of the search committees and selection committees for both years to be presented in court. They have stated that RTI applications filed on September 27 and October 2, 2026, seeking the records are pending. As interim relief, measures have been sought to secure the records and to establish advance criteria for future appointments, including five names for each vacancy and recording the reasons for selection.
The main demand is that if the appointments are found to be unlawful, the positions should be declared vacant. The petition also raises the question of whether such a writ can be issued despite Article 324(5). Notably, this petition, filed through advocate Anil Kumar, has come amid opposition and CJP's protests against SIR-related decisions.