SC plea alleges no scrutiny of election experience or integrity in CEC, EC appointments

A petitioner challenging the appointments of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi has approached the Supreme Court with additional grounds, alleging that the selection process did not specifically assess the candidates' experience in conducting elections or their integrity.

In an application seeking to amend his writ petition, Suri Payala has sought permission to place on record documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Legislative Department. He contends that the records show that the material placed before the Search Committee and Selection Committee consisted largely of candidate lists, service particulars, dates and service records, without disclosing any specific evaluation of election-management experience or integrity.

The challenge concerns appointments made on March 14, 2024, and February 17, 2025, under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Through the proposed amendments, Payala seeks to argue that the recommendations leading to these appointments are non est in law.

Petitioner questions compliance with the 2023 Act

Payala has argued that Section 5 of the 2023 Act requires the Search Committee to prepare a panel of five eligible persons for appointment as Election Commissioners, while Section 6 governs the Selection Committee's recommendation.

According to the application, although the minutes of the selection process refer to candidates being considered on the basis of eligibility and experience, the underlying records do not establish that their experience in conducting elections or their integrity was specifically assessed.

The petitioner contends that merely recording that Section 5 was noted does not demonstrate how its requirements were evaluated or whether the selection process complied with the statutory framework.

Questions over the March 2024 appointments

The application raises specific concerns about the selection process that led to the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners on March 14, 2024.

Payala has questioned the Search Committee's handling of the shortlist for the two vacancies. He states that the agenda envisaged a panel of ten names, but the committee ultimately recommended six candidates. The records, he alleges, do not explain the criteria used to reduce the pool or demonstrate any specific assessment of the candidates' integrity and experience in election management.

The petitioner has also referred to the dissent of Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, who was then a Congress leader and participated in the selection process. Chowdhury had sought profiles of the shortlisted candidates but was allegedly provided with a list of 221 names instead. Payala contends that the minutes do not address the concerns raised by Chowdhury in his dissent.

Application raises questions about the February 2025 selection

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

Payala has referred to a Legislative Department note dated January 6, 2025, which proposed obtaining the 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 the names of serving Secretaries and those who had retired within the preceding two years. The petitioner argues that the appointment files do not explain the reasons for the change in approach or why the pool was restricted to persons who had retired within that period.

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 the application, the agenda had sought a panel for appointment as CEC, and the records do not adequately explain why an additional panel was prepared.

Rahul Gandhi's dissent also cited

The petitioner has further referred to the dissent of Rahul Gandhi 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.

Despite his position, the Selection Committee proceeded with its recommendations. Payala has cited this episode as part of his challenge to the process followed in making the appointments.

Seeks to have appointments declared legally invalid

On the basis of the documents obtained under the RTI process, Payala seeks to introduce an additional ground that the recommendations dated March 14, 2024, and February 17, 2025, are non est in law, meaning they have no legal effect.

The petitioner has also proposed a transitional arrangement in the event that the appointments are set aside. He has requested that the incumbent office-holders be allowed to continue for a fixed period to facilitate fresh appointments.

The proposed relief further seeks restrictions on new policy decisions during the transitional period, subject to the Supreme Court's directions, while preserving acts already performed before the judgment.

The amendment application has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Anil Kumar.