New Delhi, 19-03-2025: The Supreme Court has scheduled April 16 for the final hearing of multiple petitions challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) under the 2023 law. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh set the date after senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), urged an urgent hearing, emphasizing that the matter strikes at the core of democracy and aligns with the principles established in the 2023 Constitution Bench verdict.
Bhushan pointed out that the issue revolves around a fundamental legal question: whether the appointment of the CEC and ECs should follow the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which mandated a selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition (LoP), and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or if it should adhere to the 2023 law, which excludes the CJI from the process. The bench acknowledged the significance of the matter but stated that numerous urgent cases are heard daily and, therefore, fixed April 16 as the date for a comprehensive hearing.
Previously, on February 18, the Supreme Court had assured that it would prioritize the hearing of these petitions. The dispute intensified after the government, on February 17, appointed Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as the new Chief Election Commissioner under the 2023 law. Kumar became the first CEC to assume office under the new selection process, and his tenure will extend until January 26, 2029—just before the expected announcement of the next Lok Sabha election schedule. Additionally, Vivek Joshi, a 1989-batch IAS officer from the Haryana cadre, was appointed as an Election Commissioner and is set to serve in the role until 2031.
The new law stipulates that a CEC or an EC retires at the age of 65 or upon completing a six-year term in the Election Commission, whichever comes first. The controversy arises from the fact that the Supreme Court’s March 2, 2023, ruling had explicitly directed that the selection panel must include the CJI to ensure the independence of the Election Commission. The court had warned that allowing the executive to unilaterally appoint ECs and the CEC would jeopardize the democratic process and hinder free and fair elections.
Despite these concerns, the government moved forward with appointments under the 2023 law, prompting Bhushan to argue that the Centre had “overruled” the Supreme Court’s verdict without addressing its underlying rationale. The ADR’s petition contends that the exclusion of the CJI from the selection panel increases executive interference, thereby undermining the autonomy of the Election Commission.
The Supreme Court had previously declined to impose a stay on these appointments during a March 15 hearing, but it reiterated that the matter would be decided on merit. The NGO has maintained that the Election Commission must be shielded from political and executive influence to preserve the integrity of the democratic process.
Adding to the controversy, former IAS officers Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Sandhu were selected as ECs by a panel chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the provisions of the new law. The upcoming April 16 hearing is expected to be a pivotal moment in determining whether the 2023 law will stand or if the selection process must revert to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling.