Show us the authority under which you hold office: that, in essence, is what a new Supreme Court petition that challenges appointment of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi asks of the three officials. Its allegations are the petitioner’s own and are untested.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, filed in the Supreme Court, seeks writs of quo warranto against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petitioner contends that their appointments did not comply with the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 [Suri Payala v. Union of India].
The petition (Diary No. 63078/2026) was filed through Advocate-on-Record Anil Kumar. It has not yet been assigned a bench or a listing date. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and nothing in the petition has been tested. In the material available, neither the Union Government nor the Election Commission of India has responded to it.
What the petitioner wants
The principal prayer is for quo warranto writs requiring the three officials to show the authority under which they hold office and, if that authority is found lacking, a declaration that the offices are vacant. The petition also puts several questions to the Court: whether Section 6 requires five names per vacancy, whether the Selection Committee must adopt its procedure before it selects, whether Sections 5 to 8 apply afresh when a sitting Election Commissioner is made Chief Election Commissioner, and whether quo warranto can lie against holders of these offices in view of Article 324(5).
Appointments in question
Two sets of notifications are challenged. Those of March 14, 2024 appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu as Election Commissioners, and that of February 17, 2025 elevated Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner and appointed Vivek Joshi as Election Commissioner. The petition alleges non-compliance with Sections 5, 6 and 8(1) of the 2023 Act.
Six names for two vacancies
As the petitioner reads Section 6, the Search Committee must prepare a panel of five names for each vacancy. For the two vacancies filled in March 2024, the petition says, the Search Committee recommended only six names, and it asks whether those six can count as a panel under the provision. It relies on the Supreme Court’s order of March 22, 2024, in the challenge to the 2023 Act, and on the haste in that process that the order is said to have noted.
The petition goes on to allege that on March 13, 2024, the Secretary of the Legislative Department sent the Leader of Opposition a list of over 200 persons before the Search Committee had finalised its shortlist. According to the petition, the Search Committee recommended six names the next day and the Selection Committee chose Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu the same day.
The experience requirement
Under Section 5, eligibility is limited to persons who hold or have held a post equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India and who have integrity and knowledge of, and experience in, the management and conduct of elections. The petitioner contends that the official profiles of the three officials do not show election-specific assignments. It says the Executive Record Sheet of Gyanesh Kumar lists 26 postings, none classed as election-related, and that the profiles of Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi likewise identify none. The petition itself acknowledges that details of any unlisted election assignments are held by the Union Government and the Election Commission.
The February 2025 notification
On this notification, the petitioner argues that Sections 5 to 8 applied afresh, including a new panel, although one of the appointees was already an Election Commissioner. Section 8(1) requires the Selection Committee to regulate its procedure in a “transparent manner”, and the petition asks whether the Committee adopted a procedure before making the selection and whether any such procedure was disclosed or can be ascertained from the record.
Interim relief and pending RTI requests
As interim relief, the petitioner seeks preservation and production of the original records of the Search Committee and the Selection Committee for the 2024 and 2025 appointments. It also asks that, while the petition is pending, any future appointment of a Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioner follow safeguards: advance disclosure of the Search Committee’s criteria, a panel of five per vacancy, a recorded basis for selection, and adoption of the Selection Committee’s procedure before selection. The petitioner says its Right to Information applications for the appointment records, filed on September 27 and October 2, 2026, remain pending.
The wider context
The Supreme Court is already seized of separate petitions against decisions the Election Commission took during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, on which it has sought the Commission’s response. The present petition is a distinct challenge to the appointments themselves. Neither the Commission nor the Union has stated its position on it.
Why the petition matters
The petition invites the Court to treat the procedural requirements of the 2023 Act as conditions of a valid appointment, and to decide whether quo warranto is available against constitutional office-holders in this setting. Whether the contentions have merit is for the Court to decide after hearing the Union and the Election Commission, and the three officials remain in office unless and until the Court orders otherwise.
Case Title: Suri Payala v. Union of India [Diary No. 63078/2026]
Court: Supreme Court of India (Article 32 writ petition)
Date: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Petitioner through Advocate-on-Record Anil Kumar.