Supreme Court Questions Chief Election Commissioner Appointment Process; Says Current System Allows Centre to Dominate Selection Panel

Key Points

The Supreme Court on Thursday, 14th May 2026, raised serious concerns over the current process of appointing the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC), which involves a panel comprising the Prime Minister, a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of Opposition (LoP).

The apex court posed a significant question: why should a cabinet member be part of the three-member panel that decides upon the appointment of CEC and ECs? It further stressed that the involvement of a Cabinet member in addition to the Prime Minister renders the presence and say of the LoP ineffective.

A two-judge bench of Justices Dipankar Gupta and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the present system allows the government to appoint a person of its choice, as two out of the three members in the panel are likely to favour the Centre. The court questioned the “show-off about independence” in the appointment process and suggested that an independent person should replace the Cabinet Minister on the panel.

The supreme court made these observations while hearing a series of petitions that sought to challenge the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The act stipulates that the CEC and ECs will be appointed by the President of India based on the recommendation of the "Selection Committee", which includes the PM, a Cabinet minister, and LoP.

See also: “Existing Rolls Thrown in Dustbin”: Ex-CEC Quraishi Questions Rush Behind ECI’s SIR Exercise

The selection panel for appointing the CBI director also comprises a three-member panel, of which the Chief Justice of India is a part. Underscoring this, the bench questioned why an independent member, likewise, is not part of the selection panel for CEC and ECs. The bench noted that the Election Commission’s role is far more critical as it is responsible for safeguarding democracy.

“We don’t say CJI should be there. But why shouldn’t there be an independent member? Why should it be from the ministry?” the bench remarked.

Attorney General K Venkataramani submitted that the neutrality and independence of the CEC and ECs stem from their functioning after appointment. However, the Supreme Court bench disagreed, asserting that the process of independence begins from the appointment stage itself.

See also: ‘You Can’t Shout’ Vs. ‘Get Lost!’: The War Of Words Between CEC Gyanesh Kumar And TMC’s Derek O’ Brien

The court emphasised that the Election Commission must not only be neutral in its functioning but must also be seen to be neutral. “It is not sufficient that the Commission is independent. It must appear to be independent also,” the Bench stated.

The Supreme Court is currently examining the validity of the law enacted after its earlier order directing that appointments of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners be made by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, and Leader of Opposition to ensure greater independence in the process.

As the court examined the appointments of Gyanesh Kumar (now CEC) and S S Sandhu as Election Commissioners in 2024, the bench asked the Centre to produce the original records related to the search, selection, and appointment process.

The central government has urged the court to refer the batch of writ petitions, challenging the new law, to a five-judge bench.

Suggested reading: