Published 4 minutes ago
Reading Time: 7 minutes
The discussion about the Central Election Commission and its election commissioners was in the headlines on Wednesday.
There were two reasons for this - firstly, an investigative report by the English newspaper Indian Express, and secondly, a decision of the Supreme Court on the law of appointment of election commissioners.
The Indian Express report claimed that two members of the Election Commission had disagreed with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on several issues during the last few months.
At the same time, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave a divided decision on the Central Government's petition regarding sending the Modi government's law brought in the year 2023 to a larger bench.
In the year 2023, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had constituted a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the appointments in the Election Commission till a law is made by the Parliament.
In this regard, the Modi government at the Center had enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Service Conditions and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Under this, the selection committee for the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner includes the Prime Minister, the Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
The present three Election Commissioners were appointed under the 2023 law during the tenure of the Modi government. The selection committee for the appointment included the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi.
Skip to Most Read Skip to content
most read
finished
When Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Gyanesh Kumar were appointed Election Commissioners in March 2024, Congress's Adhir Ranjan Choudhary, the opposition member in the committee, had registered his disagreement over the appointment process.
In February 2025, when Gyanesh Kumar was made the Chief Election Commissioner and Vivek Joshi was appointed as the Election Commissioner, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi had also registered his disagreement.
What decision did the Supreme Court give?
Many petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against this law brought by the Central Government in 2023.
The central government demanded that these petitions be sent to a larger bench.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, which was hearing this case, gave a divided decision.
While Justice Dipankar Dutta rejected the Central Government's demand, Justice Sharma said that it involved important questions of law on which a larger bench should decide.
According to Bar & Bench, a website covering legal matters, given the divided opinion, the bench ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India to consider whether a Constitution bench should be constituted to decide on the issue.
What did Justice Dipankar Dutta say?
skip ahead podcast
Dinbhar: Same voice, new style
Big news from the country and the world that made headlines.
episode
finished
According to Bar & Bench, Justice Dutta said, "We heard these petitions over five days, speaking in one voice gives strength to the voice of institutional solidarity. Unfortunately, our opinions are divided. It is a fundamental principle of the constitutional scheme that rulers are bound by the law and not above it."
Justice Dutta said, "Free and fair elections depend entirely on the independent Central Election Commission. It is not enough for the Central Election Commission to be independent, it must also appear independent."
He said that a minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the selection committee cannot be expected to disobey his nominator (the Prime Minister), because the principle of collective responsibility would prevent him from opposing the Prime Minister.
Justice Dutta said, "It is too far-fetched to expect that a cabinet minister would have a different opinion than his leader or the government. The inclusion of cabinet ministers does not provide the independent balance that an impartial selector could have created."
According to Live Law, another website covering legal matters, Justice Dutta raised the question whether the inclusion of cabinet ministers in the selection committee provides an independent balance to the executive.
Justice Dutta said, "In such circumstances, independent balance could have created an impartial selector. The cabinet ministers would simply repeat the words of their leader. As a result, the purpose of the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in the Selection Committee is not fulfilled and his role remains merely cosmetic."
What was Justice Sharma's opinion?
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma's opinion was contrary to that of Justice Dutta. Justice Sharma said that since an important question related to the interpretation of the Constitution has arisen, under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, only a Constitution Bench will have to officially decide on this matter.
Even though there was a difference of opinion on whether the case should be heard by a Constitution Bench or not, a two-judge bench ultimately directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice to avoid delay so that he could constitute a Constitution Bench.
The bench, in its unanimous order, said, "Any decision by a three-judge bench on which of the two views is correct would be of no use and would only delay the decision on the important issues that have been raised."
During the hearing of this case, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that in the 2023 decision, the Supreme Court had only filled the legal gap.
He said that once the law is made, priority should be given to legislative understanding rather than temporary judicial decisions.
Uproar over Indian Express report
An investigative report by the English newspaper Indian Express has claimed that two members of the Election Commission have expressed disagreement with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on many issues during the last few months.
After this report, political uproar started and opposition leaders raised questions on the working style of the government and the Election Commission.
The Indian Express report claims that two election commissioners lodged objections '14 times in 10 months' against the Election Commission's actions.
According to the report, "These objections were lodged by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, ranging from keeping themselves in the dark to adding new voters and deleting names and raised questions over 'unauthorised, illegal' steps."
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process of the Election Commission of India (ECI) started in Bihar in June 2025 but till now more than 13 crore names have been removed from the draft voter lists of 30 states and union territories.
However, those whose names have been removed have been given the option to give their response by appealing against it. Opposition parties have already been raising questions on the role of the Election Commission.
