On February 18, 2025, Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Rahul Gandhi, publicly criticized the Narendra Modi-led government for appointing Gyanesh Kumar as India’s new Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) just hours before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear petitions challenging the legality of the selection process. Gandhi described the move as “disrespectful and discourteous” to constitutional institutions and the nation’s democratic ethos, emphasizing that the appointment bypassed judicial scrutiny and violated the spirit of a landmark Supreme Court order from March 2023.
The controversy centers on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which reconstituted the selection panel for appointing election officials. Previously, a Supreme Court ruling in Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (March 2, 2023) had mandated that the panel include the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to ensure impartiality. However, the 2023 law replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, effectively granting the government a 2:1 majority in the committee. Gandhi, in his dissent note submitted during the selection meeting on February 17, argued that this alteration “flagrantly violated” the Supreme Court’s directive and undermined public trust in electoral integrity. He highlighted that the apex court is set to review the constitutional validity of this law on February 19, 2025, making the government’s haste to finalize Kumar’s appointment appear politically motivated.
Gyanesh Kumar, a 1988-batch Kerala-cadre IAS officer and former Secretary of the Union Cooperation Ministry, was appointed as CEC late on February 17, succeeding Rajiv Kumar, who retired on February 18. The selection panel, chaired by Prime Minister Modi and including Home Minister Amit Shah and Rahul Gandhi, convened despite the Congress’s demand to defer the meeting until the Supreme Court’s ruling. Gandhi’s dissent note, drafted with input from the Congress’s legal team, cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s 1949 Constituent Assembly speech warning against executive interference in the Election Commission’s independence. The note also referenced recent public surveys indicating declining voter confidence in electoral institutions, a concern the Supreme Court had sought to address through its 2023 judgment.
The government defended its decision, stating that the Supreme Court had not issued a stay order on the selection process despite pending litigation. A senior official noted that the 2023 Act was enacted in compliance with the court’s suggestion for Parliament to legislate on the matter. However, critics, including senior Congress leaders like Abhishek Singhvi, argued that excluding the CJI tilted the committee’s balance toward the executive, eroding the Election Commission’s neutrality. Singhvi remarked, “The government wants control, not credibility,” a sentiment echoed by Gandhi, who accused the Modi administration of prioritizing political expediency over institutional sanctity.
The timing of Kumar’s appointment has drawn sharp scrutiny. With the Supreme Court hearing just 48 hours away, the Congress labeled the move a “midnight decision” reminiscent of contentious bureaucratic actions in the past. Gandhi stressed that proceeding with the appointment amid judicial pendency disrespects democratic norms and the founding principles articulated by Ambedkar. The dissent note further pointed out that the 2023 law contradicted the Supreme Court’s intent to insulate the Election Commission from executive dominance, a safeguard deemed critical for free and fair elections.
Kumar’s tenure as CEC, effective from February 19, 2025, until January 26, 2029, will oversee significant electoral events, including the 2026 Assembly polls in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. His prior roles, including overseeing Jammu and Kashmir’s administrative restructuring post-Article 370 abrogation, have drawn both praise and criticism. While the government lauds his administrative expertise, the Opposition questions his proximity to the ruling establishment, fearing bias in future electoral oversight.
The broader implications of this dispute extend beyond Kumar’s appointment. It reignites debates about executive overreach and the erosion of institutional checks in India’s democracy. The Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict will determine whether the 2023 Act aligns with constitutional principles or perpetuates a system where the government, as Gandhi warned, “appoints the umpire” in its own matches. For now, the controversy underscores the fragile balance between legislative authority and judicial oversight in safeguarding democratic institutions.
