The selection and appointment mechanism of India’s top poll panel has once again landed under judicial scrutiny before the Supreme Court of India. A writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by advocate Surya Payala has directly challenged the validity of the Central Government’s notifications dated March 14, 2024—which appointed retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers Gyanesh Kumar and Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners. The plea further contests the subsequent elevation of Gyanesh Kumar as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) upon Rajiv Kumar’s superannuation in February 2025, alongside the February 17, 2025 notification appointing former financial services secretary Dr. Vivek Joshi as Election Commissioner.

The legal challenge argues that the executive appointment process failed to comply with statutory mandates under 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.

Primary Ground 1: Shortfall in Search Committee Panel Requirements (Section 6)

The foremost procedural illegality highlighted in the petition concerns Section 6 of the 2023 Act, which outlines the duties of the Search Committee headed by the Union Law Minister.

• The 5-per-Vacancy Rule: Under the statute, the Search Committee is tasked with preparing a shortlist panel of five eligible candidates for each vacant post.

• The Deficit: When two posts fell vacant simultaneously in March 2024 following the retirement of Anup Chandra Pandey and the abrupt resignation of Arun Goel, the Search Committee was legally obligated to place a panel of ten candidates before the Selection Committee. Instead, the committee forwarded only six names in total.

• Judicial Precedent Cited: The plea relies on the Supreme Court’s observations from March 22, 2024, in previous challenge hearings, where the bench noted that statutory compliance required ten profiles for two vacancies so that the Selection Committee could exercise a meaningful deliberative choice.

Primary Ground 2: Extreme Procedural Haste and Compressed Scrutiny Window

The petitioner contends that the appointment timeline bypassed fair deliberative standards:

• On March 13, 2024, the Legislative Department circulated a preliminary database containing over 200 bureaucratic profiles to Selection Committee members, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, before the Search Committee had finalized its shortlisted panel.

• On March 14, 2024, a final truncated shortlist of just six names was placed before the Prime Minister-led Selection Committee.

• The official presidential notifications appointing Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu were published the very same afternoon.

The petitioner argues that reviewing 200 dossiers and narrowing them down to six within a matter of hours precluded any comprehensive background verification or assessment of candidate competence, directly violating the transparency guarantee under Section 8(1) of the Act.

Primary Ground 3: Mandatory Experience in ‘Management and Conduct of Elections’

Section 5 of the 2023 Act stipulates that appointees must have held the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, possess proven integrity, and carry documented knowledge and experience in the management and conduct of elections.

Drawing on official executive service profiles and records obtained via Right to Information (RTI) applications, the petition asserts that:

• Neither Gyanesh Kumar (a 1988-batch Kerala cadre officer) nor Sukhbir Singh Sandhu (a 1988-batch Uttarakhand cadre officer) had past assignments or postings in state electoral offices, the Election Commission, or district returning apparatuses dedicated to managing or conducting elections.

• Official service sheets reveal that across 26 career transfers, Kumar held senior administrative positions—such as Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs during the abrogation of Article 370 and Secretary in the Ministry of Cooperation—but none specifically pertained to election management duties.

• A similar absence of specialized election administration experience is asserted with respect to Dr. Vivek Joshi’s career record prior to his appointment as EC.

Internal Friction Within Nirvachan Sadan Brought to Court

The judicial scrutiny intersects with a connected matter (Rakesh Singh v. Union of India) heard by a three-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana.

During proceedings, the court’s attention was drawn to official internal dissents recorded between late 2025 and August 2026 by Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi. The two Commissioners flagged at least 14 distinct objections to administrative decisions issued in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging they were issued without three-member collective approval:

1. Unilateral Decisions & Travel: Commission communications, policy circulars, and foreign travel undertaken without collective board clearance.

2. Statutory Form 6 Amendments: Substantive modifications introduced to voter registration Form 6 without formal statutory amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, despite explicit on-file objections from Commissioner Joshi and concurred with by Commissioner Sandhu.

3. Database Centralization: Centralizing access to the ERONet/ECINet voter database within the Commission’s internal IT establishment, bypassing statutory Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

4. Appeals in West Bengal: Authorized filings of legal appeals before court-constituted tribunals in West Bengal without prior intimation to the two Commissioners.

Supreme Court Declines Interim Stay; ECI Defends Functioning

While issuing formal notice on the challenges, the Supreme Court refused to pass any interim orders restraining CEC Gyanesh Kumar from discharging his constitutional responsibilities, observing that the court will not issue ex-parte or premature directions that impede an active constitutional authority.

In a comprehensive counter-affidavit filed on October 26, the Election Commission of India defended its decisions:

• Constitutional Protection: Under Article 324(5), the CEC enjoys constitutional tenure protection equivalent to that of a Supreme Court judge, insulating the office from collateral attacks or interim suspensions.

• Administrative Hierarchy & Deliberation: The ECI submitted that administrative decisions are carried out in strict accordance with statutory rules, and the presence of differing opinions or vigorous internal debate reflects the functioning of a multi-member commission rather than procedural failure.

The Supreme Court has granted the petitioners time to file their rejoinders and scheduled the matter for substantive hearings in mid-November.