The Narendra Modi-led NDA government on Monday appointed Gyanesh Kumar as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) following the retirement of the incumbent. This move, though entirely by the law, has been met with unwarranted opposition from the Congress party, which has labelled it a “hasty decision.” However, a closer look at the facts reveals that the government acted within its constitutional mandate, while the Congress’s objections appear politically motivated rather than legally sound.
The controversy stems from the Supreme Court’s earlier deliberations on the composition of the selection panel for Election Commissioners. In a previous ruling, a constitutional bench led by then-Chief Justice DY Chandrachud suggested including the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the three-member selection panel alongside the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. However, this proposition was widely debated, with concerns raised about the judiciary’s role in an inherently political decision-making process.
Recognizing these concerns, the government passed an ordinance that removed the CJI from the panel. This move was not arbitrary but was aimed at ensuring that the judiciary remains independent of political appointments while allowing the executive and legislature to fulfill their constitutional roles. Despite the ordinance being challenged in court, the Supreme Court chose to defer its ruling, leaving the government with no option but to proceed with appointments to ensure the Election Commission remained functional ahead of crucial elections.
Despite the legal validity of the government’s action, the Congress party has opposed the appointment, claiming it undermines the impartiality of the Election Commission. Congress leader KC Venugopal asserted that the appointment violated the “spirit of the Constitution” but failed to specify which constitutional provision had been breached. Nowhere does the Constitution mandate that Election Commissioners must be appointed by the judiciary or legislature.
Moreover, this is not the first time the Congress has raised alarms over electoral appointments while ignoring similar practices during its own tenure in power. Successive governments, including those led by the Congress, have exercised discretion in such appointments, making their current objections appear more about political point-scoring than genuine concerns about democratic integrity.
The Supreme Court had ample time to adjudicate the matter before the retirement of the previous CEC. However, it scheduled the hearing on the matter for February 19, on day of the incumbent’s retirement. This delay effectively forced the government’s hand in making the appointment to prevent a leadership vacuum in the Election Commission.
Petitioner advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the matter was “time-sensitive,” yet the court chose not to expedite its decision. This raises the question: Why did the court wait until the eve of the CEC’s retirement to take up the case? The Supreme Court’s timing fuels concerns that judicial procrastination may have led to an avoidable controversy.
This is not the first time the court has delayed action. Even before last year’s Lok Sabha elections and five key state elections—Jharkhand, Haryana, Maharashtra, Odisha, and Jammu & Kashmir—it deferred its verdict, emphasizing the need for a fully functional Election Commission. Against this backdrop, the amended selection panel—comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a government-nominated member (Home Minister Amit Shah)—convened on Monday (Feb 17) under the new law. However, Rahul Gandhi, as Leader of the Opposition, submitted a dissent note and refused to participate. With no alternative, the government proceeded with the appointment, securing the President’s approval late Monday night.
The Congress’s objections, therefore, seem more like an attempt to manufacture a crisis rather than a genuine constitutional concern. If the Supreme Court were to rule that the legislature’s decision cannot be reversed by the judiciary, it would reaffirm the fundamental principle of separation of powers and serve as a strong rebuttal to Congress’s misplaced opposition.
Political analysts and legal experts largely agree that including the CJI in the selection panel would have created unnecessary conflicts, given the judiciary’s role in adjudicating election-related disputes. By removing the CJI from the process, the government has upheld the principle of judicial impartiality, not undermined it.
If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the government’s decision, it will serve as yet another setback for the Congress, which continues to struggle for relevance in the face of the NDA’s electoral dominance. Moreover, with the government’s push for ‘One Nation, One Election’ gaining momentum, this controversy might soon be overshadowed by a larger debate on electoral reforms.
In conclusion, the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as CEC was not only legal but also necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of India’s democratic process. The Congress’s opposition, rather than being rooted in constitutional principles, appears to be yet another attempt at political obstructionism—one that is unlikely to hold up against legal scrutiny or public perception.
