The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it will give “priority” to hearing petitions challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC) under the 2023 law on February 19.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was informed by advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing an NGO, that the government had ignored a 2023 Constitution Bench ruling while appointing the CEC and EC on Monday.
The verdict had mandated that the selection and appointment of the CEC and ECs be carried out by a panel that included the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, Bhushan argued that the government excluded the CJI, calling it a “mockery of democracy”.
“The matter is listed on February 19 but it is listed as item number 41. The government has appointed the CEC and EC as per 2023 law disregarding the view taken by a constitution Bench. Kindly take up on top of the board as the matter requires urgent consideration,” Bhushan said.
Advocate Varun Thakur, appearing for petitioner Jaya Thakur, noted that three appointments had already been made under the disputed law.
Also Read
The bench assured Bhushan and other parties that it would take up the petitions for hearing on February 19, after addressing some other urgent matters.
On Monday, the government appointed Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as the next CEC. Kumar is the first to assume the role under the new law, with his term set to last until January 26, 2029 — just before the Election Commission is expected to announce the next Lok Sabha elections schedule.
Additionally, Vivek Joshi, a 1989-batch IAS officer from the Haryana cadre, was appointed as an election commissioner. Born on May 21, 1966, Joshi (58) is expected to serve in the poll panel until 2031.
As per the law, a CEC or EC can serve for six years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first.
On February 12, the Supreme Court scheduled the February 19 hearing on petitions against the CEC and EC appointments under the 2023 law, stating that any developments in the interim would have consequences. The court emphasised that the issue would be decided based on its merits.
Bhushan had argued that the 2023 verdict had established an independent panel — comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the CJI — for selecting election commissioners.
“They have brought an Act by which they have removed the chief justice and brought in another minister, effectively making the commissioners appointment only at the pleasure of the government. You need to have an independent committee to appoint the election commissioners,” he said.
(With agency inputs)

)