Selection Panel Didn't Consider If CEC Or ECs Had Election Experience: Petitioner Produces RTI Records Before Supreme Court

A petitioner challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to produce records obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to allege that the selection committees did not specifically assess whether the appointees had experience in conducting elections or possessed the requisite integrity.

In an application seeking amendment of his writ petition, petitioner Suri Payala has contended that records obtained from the Legislative Department show that the material placed before the Search Committee and the Selection Committee consisted primarily of lists of candidates, service particulars, dates and service records. According to him, the records do not disclose any specific assessment of the candidates' integrity or experience in election management and conduct.

The petitioner has challenged the appointments made in March 2024 and February 2025 under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.  

Alleged absence of assessment of election experience

The petitioner contends that Section 5 of the 2023 Act requires the Search Committee to prepare a panel of five persons eligible for appointment as Election Commissioners, while Section 6 governs the Selection Committee's recommendation. He argues that the records do not show a specific assessment of whether the candidates possessed experience in the conduct of elections or satisfied the requirement relating to integrity.

According to the application, the minutes of the selection process refer to candidates being considered on the basis of their eligibility and experience. However, the petitioner alleges that the underlying records do not disclose any specific exercise to ascertain their election-related experience or integrity.

He further contends that merely recording that Section 5 was noted, without disclosing how its requirements were assessed, does not demonstrate compliance with the statutory framework.

Questions raised over 2024 selection process

With respect to the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as ECs made on March 14, 2024, the petitioner has questioned the process through which the Search Committee shortlisted candidates for two vacancies.

The application states that the agenda contemplated a panel of ten names, but the committee ultimately recommended six candidates. The petitioner alleges that the records do not explain the criteria used to narrow the field or show any specific assessment of the candidates' integrity and experience in election management.

The petitioner has also referred to the dissent expressed by then Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, who had sought profiles of the shortlisted candidates but was allegedly provided with a list of 221 names. According to the application, the minutes do not address the concerns raised in the dissent.

Petitioner questions procedure followed in 2025

The amendment application also raises questions about the process preceding the appointments made on February 17, 2025, when Gyanesh Kumar was appointed CEC and Vivek Joshi was appointed Election Commissioner.

The petitioner refers to a Legislative Department note dated January 6, 2025, which proposed obtaining names of persons holding or having held posts equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. A communication dated January 8, 2025, allegedly sought names of serving Secretaries and those who had retired within the preceding two years.

The petitioner contends that the appointment files do not disclose the reasons for the change in approach or for restricting the pool to persons who had retired within the preceding two years.

He has also questioned the preparation of a separate panel of five candidates for appointment as Election Commissioner at the Search Committee meeting held on February 16, 2025. According to him, the agenda had sought a panel for appointment as CEC, and the records do not adequately explain the preparation of the additional panel.

The application further refers to Rahul Gandhi's dissent during the Selection Committee meeting on February 17, 2025. Gandhi had sought deferment of the meeting pending a hearing before the Supreme Court and did not participate in the deliberations. The committee nevertheless proceeded with its recommendations.

Seeks to challenge appointments

On the basis of the records obtained through the RTI process, the petitioner seeks to introduce an additional ground that the recommendations dated March 14, 2024, and February 17, 2025, are non est in law.

The petitioner has proposed that, if the appointments are set aside, the incumbent office-holders be permitted to continue for a fixed transitional period to allow fresh appointments to be made. The proposed relief also seeks restrictions on new policy decisions during that period, subject to the Court's directions, while preserving acts already performed before the judgment.

The application has been filed through AoR Anil Kumar.