Gyanesh Kumar is set to take charge as India’s new Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) on February 19. Coincidentally, the Supreme Court is also scheduled to hear a case related to the appointment process on the same day.
Controversy Over the Appointment
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has alleged that the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar violates a Supreme Court order. He had urged the government to delay the selection process until the court’s hearing, but the central government proceeded with the appointment as planned. This was necessary since the tenure of the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner, Rajiv Kumar, was ending on February 18.
This is the first appointment made under the newly enacted law governing the selection of election commissioners. According to this law, the selection panel consists of the Prime Minister, a Union Minister nominated by the PM, and the Leader of the Opposition. The panel, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, met at the Prime Minister’s Office in South Block. The meeting was attended by Home Minister Amit Shah and Rahul Gandhi. Following deliberations, the panel recommended the most senior election commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, for the position. President Droupadi Murmu subsequently approved his appointment.
The Supreme Court had previously accepted petitions challenging this appointment process but declined to issue a stay order.
Following Tradition or Breaking Norms?
Despite the opposition’s objections, Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment aligns with past traditions. Historically, the senior-most election commissioner has been promoted to the post of Chief Election Commissioner. With Rajiv Kumar’s retirement, Gyanesh Kumar was the senior-most official, making his appointment a continuation of this precedent.
However, this is the first time the appointment has been made under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Earlier, in March 2024, Gyanesh Kumar and SS Sandhu were appointed as election commissioners under this law after the retirement of Anup Chandra Pandey and the resignation of Arun Goel.
The new law was enacted following a Supreme Court order in March 2023, which initially mandated the inclusion of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the selection panel. However, when Parliament passed the law in December 2023, the CJI was removed from the panel, and instead, a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister was included. This change is the primary reason for the ongoing legal challenge in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Hearing and Congress’ Stance
Congress leader and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi has reiterated the party’s opposition to the appointment process. He highlighted that the Supreme Court has issued three orders regarding the matter, with the next hearing scheduled for February 19. Both he and Rahul Gandhi had demanded that the selection meeting be postponed until the Supreme Court’s verdict.
Interestingly, Rahul Gandhi reportedly walked out of the meeting before its conclusion and submitted a dissent note, which he later shared on social media. In the note, he accused the government of violating the Supreme Court’s directive.
A Political Statement or a Legal Dispute?
Rahul Gandhi’s objection is primarily political. The government’s move to pass a law superseding the Supreme Court’s directive is not unprecedented. A similar situation occurred in the Shah Bano case when the then-Congress government overturned a Supreme Court ruling by passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. At that time, Rajiv Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi’s father, was the Prime Minister.
Applying the same logic, if the new law governing election commissioner appointments is considered a violation of the Supreme Court’s order, then the Shah Bano case could also be viewed similarly. However, in both instances, the government exercised its legislative authority to pass new laws, which is within its constitutional powers.
Thus, the key question remains: Does the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar truly violate the Supreme Court’s order, or is it simply a political disagreement? The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing on February 19 may provide more clarity on this contentious issue.
