Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Appointment Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Sandhu & Vivek Joshi

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking writs of quo warranto against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, alleging that their appointments were made in breach of the procedure prescribed under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 by Suri Payala, challenges the March 14, 2024 notifications which appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners. The petition further challenges Gyanesh Kumar's appointment as the CEC through the notification dated February 17, 2025, and Vivek Joshi's appointment as Election Commissioner through the same notification.  

The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the Act in the appointments.  

Challenge To Search Committee's Panel

Referring to Section 6, the petitioner argues that the Search Committee was required to prepare a panel of five persons for each vacancy. However, when two Election Commissioner vacancies arose in March 2024, the Search Committee recommended only six names for the two vacancies.

The petition relies on the Supreme Court's March 22, 2024 order in the plea challenging the 2023 Act, in which the Court had observed that Section 6 required ten names for two vacancies. In the said order, the Court had also expressed concerns over the hasty procedure, and said that appointments must be done only after circulating the full detials of the names with the selection committee members.

The petition further alleges that on March 13, 2024, the Secretary, Legislative Department, had forwarded to the Leader of Opposition a list of more than 200 persons even before the Search Committee had finalised a shortlist. The following day, the Search Committee recommended six names and the Selection Committee selected Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu on the same day.  

According to the petitioner, this raises the question whether the six names constituted a "panel" prepared by the Search Committee in the manner contemplated by Section 6.

Alleged Lack Of Demonstrated Election Experience

Section 5 of the 2023 Act restricts eligibility to persons who hold or have held a post equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India and are persons of integrity with knowledge of and experience in the management and conduct of elections. Section 8(1) requires the Selection Committee to regulate its procedure in a transparent manner.   

The petition claims that the official profiles and Executive Record Sheets of Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu do not identify any assignment specifically relating to the management or conduct of elections before their appointment to the Election Commission.

In Kumar's case, the petition notes that his Executive Record Sheet records 26 postings but none is classified as relating to elections. It acknowledges that he served as District Collector, Ernakulam, but states that the record classifies that posting under land revenue management and district administration. The petitioner says it is not known from the public record whether Kumar had been designated District Election Officer, served as an election observer or undertaken any other election assignment during his career.  

A similar contention is raised concerning Sandhu. His official profile records postings including District Magistrate, Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, Chairman of the National Highways Authority of India and Secretary to the Lokpal, but the petitioner says none is identified as relating to election management or an Election Commission.  

The petition makes a similar submission regarding Vivek Joshi, whose profile records various senior positions including Chief Secretary of Haryana, Registrar General and Census Commissioner and Secretary in the Department of Financial Services and DoPT, but does not identify an election-related assignment.  

The petitioner, however, acknowledges that information regarding any election assignments not reflected in the publicly available profiles is with the Union Government and the Election Commission.

Challenge To 2025 Appointments

The petition separately challenges the February 17, 2025 selection under which Gyanesh Kumar was elevated from Election Commissioner to Chief Election Commissioner and Vivek Joshi was appointed Election Commissioner.

It contends that the 2023 Act's requirements under Sections 5 to 8 had to be independently complied with for these appointments as well, including the preparation of a fresh panel and adoption of a transparent selection procedure.

The petitioner notes that the Selection Committee met on February 17, 2025, with Kumar appointed CEC with effect from February 19, 2025. At the same meeting, Joshi was selected to fill the vacancy that arose following Kumar's elevation.  

The petition also questions whether the Selection Committee's procedure was adopted before the selection and whether it was disclosed or ascertainable from the contemporaneous record.

The petitioner has sought production of the original records relating to the Search Committee and Selection Committee proceedings for the 2024 and 2025 appointments.

He states that RTI applications filed on September 27, 2026 and October 2, 2026 seeking the appointment records are still pending.  

As interim relief, the petitioner seeks directions to preserve and produce the original records and to require that any future appointment of a CEC or EC, while the petition remains pending, comply with specified safeguards, including advance disclosure of the Search Committee's criteria, a panel of five for each vacancy, recording of the basis for selecting candidates and adoption of the Selection Committee's procedure before the selection.  

Releifs

The main prayer asks the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto requiring Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to show the authority under which they hold their respective offices and, if the Court finds that the appointments lack lawful authority, declare the offices vacant.   

The petition raises, among other questions, whether Section 6 requires five names for each vacancy, whether the Selection Committee must adopt its procedure before making a selection, whether the statutory requirements apply afresh when a sitting Election Commissioner is appointed as CEC, and whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued against holders of the offices of CEC and EC despite Article 324(5).  

It may noted that the petition has been filed in the backdrop of protests being carried out by opposition parties and the CJP seeking the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over SIR-related decisions. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court had sought the response of the ECI on petitions challenging the decisions which were allegedly taken by the CEC unilaterally ignoring the objections of the ECs.

The petition has been filed through AoR Anil Kumar.

Case : Suri Payala v. Union of India | Diary No. 63078/2026