Supreme Court Petition Challenges the Appointment of the CEC and Two Election Commissioners: The Law and the Writ Behind It
A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners (ECs) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitioner asks for writs of quo warranto (a court order asking a person "by what authority do you hold this office?"). If the appointments are found unlawful, the petition asks the Court to declare the offices vacant.
The main ground is that the appointments did not follow Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The petition says the Search Committee sent only six names for two vacancies in March 2024, while the law requires a panel of five names for each vacancy. It also questions whether the appointees had the election-management experience the law requires, and whether the selection procedure was transparent.
It challenges the notifications of 14 March 2024 (Kumar and Sandhu as ECs) and 17 February 2025 (Kumar as CEC and Joshi as EC). It also asks the Court to order that the Search and Selection Committee records be preserved.
The petition has been registered but not yet listed before a bench. It is separate from other pending petitions, including the older challenge to the 2023 Act itself and a recent petition about how decisions are taken inside the Commission.
Appointment and Removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners
Article 324(2) of the Constitution says the President appoints the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners, subject to any law made by Parliament. For decades there was no such law, so the Union government in practice chose the names. In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (March 2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench said that, until Parliament made a law, appointments should be made on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. Parliament then passed the 2023 Act, which set up its own two-step system.
The new petition does not mainly attack the 2023 Act. Instead, it says the Act's own rules (five names per vacancy, election experience, a transparent procedure) were not followed in the 2024 and 2025 appointments. The Court will have to decide what Sections 5, 6 and 8 actually require.
Election Commission of India (Article 324): Powers and Functions
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is the constitutional body that conducts elections to Parliament, the state legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President. Article 324(1) gives it the "superintendence, direction and control" of preparing electoral rolls (voter lists) and conducting these elections. It was set up on 25 January 1950, which is now celebrated as National Voters' Day. It was a one-member body for most of its history and became a permanent three-member body (one CEC and two ECs) in 1993.
The ECI's credibility rests on people trusting that its members were chosen fairly. Because the Commission works as a three-member body that decides by majority, a challenge to all three appointments at once raises questions about the whole Commission. This petition comes alongside another pending matter that questions whether some recent decisions were taken by majority, as the law requires.
Writ of Quo Warranto: Challenging the Right to Hold a Public Office
A writ of quo warranto is a court order that asks a person holding a public office: "By what authority are you holding this office?" The words are Latin and mean exactly that: "by what warrant". If the person cannot show a valid legal basis for holding the post, the court can remove them from it and declare the office vacant. In India, the Supreme Court can issue it under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has asked for writs of quo warranto against the CEC and two ECs, arguing that the 2023 Act's rules on the panel size, qualifications and transparency were not followed. Following the eligibility vs suitability line, the Court is likely to look at whether legal conditions were met, not at whether the three officers are good choices. The case may also settle whether quo warranto can be used against officers who enjoy special removal protection under Article 324(5).
- Petition under Article 32 seeks quo warranto against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi
- Grounds: non-compliance with Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023
- Section 6: Search Committee (headed by Law Minister) must prepare a panel of five persons; petition says only six names were sent for two vacancies in March 2024
- Notifications challenged: 14 March 2024 (Kumar, Sandhu as ECs) and 17 February 2025 (Kumar as CEC, Joshi as EC)
- Selection Committee: PM (chair), Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Union Cabinet Minister nominated by PM
- Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): interim committee of PM, LoP and CJI until Parliament made a law
- CEC and EC term: 6 years or age 65, whichever is earlier
- Article 324(5): CEC removable only like a Supreme Court judge; ECs only on the CEC's recommendation