The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Sections 5, 6, and 8(1) of the Act. Specifically, the complaint targets the notifications issued on March 14, 2024, which appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners. Additionally, the petition challenges the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and Vivek Joshi as an Election Commissioner through a subsequent notification dated February 17, 2025. Payala argues that the Search Committee failed to adhere to statutory requirements by recommending only six names for two EC vacancies that arose in March 2024, rather than preparing the required panel of five persons for each individual vacancy.
This legal challenge arrives amid existing judicial scrutiny of the Election Commission’s internal operations. On October 5, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre regarding separate PILs filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. These earlier petitions allege that CEC Gyanesh Kumar made 14 decisions between October 2025 and August 2026 without the approval of his colleagues, Sandhu and Joshi. The allegations include unauthorized decisions, guidelines, and software changes.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant has directed Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi, EC Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg to file their replies to these allegations. The matter, which has been posted for hearing on October 27, involves disputes over the collective decision-making process within the commission. Senior counsel Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, requested the Bench to pass an interim order restraining Kumar from functioning as CEC. However, the Court declined to issue such an order at this stage, noting that it would not act solely on the basis of news reports without first hearing the Election Commission’s response.
The 2023 Act established a formalized process for the appointment of election commissioners, including the formation of a Search Committee and specific criteria for candidate selection. By challenging the procedural integrity of the current appointments, the new petition seeks to test the validity of the current leadership structure under this legal framework. The outcome of these proceedings could have significant implications for the governance and independence of India’s electoral machinery.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant an immediate stay on Kumar’s functions underscores the judicial caution typically applied in matters concerning the separation of powers and the autonomy of constitutional bodies. The Court’s decision to hear the Election Commission’s side before considering interim relief reflects a procedural standard that seeks to balance the protection of individual rights with the operational continuity of state institutions.
Legal observers note that the convergence of these two sets of petitions—one challenging the very appointment of the commission’s members and the other challenging their internal conduct—presents a complex legal landscape. The Court will need to address whether the procedural irregularities alleged in the appointments invalidate the authority of the current commission members to make decisions, or whether the internal disputes must be resolved within the existing structural framework until a final verdict is reached on the validity of the appointments.
