YS Jagan Mohan Reddy says he regrets supporting 2023 EC appointment law

YS Jagan Mohan Reddy said he regrets supporting the 2023 law that changed how India appoints its chief election commissioner and other election commissioners. He described the YSR Congress’s support as “a mistake.” His concern is that appointments should be neutral, because election officials must be trusted by all political sides.

The law created a selection committee of the prime minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the Lok Sabha Opposition leader. The government therefore has two members, while the Opposition has one. Reddy compared the arrangement to an examiner being appointed by the student. He said even an honest commissioner could face doubts if the appointment process appears politically controlled.

His comments came during allegations of bias by the Andhra Pradesh state poll panel during local body election nominations. He accused the ruling TDP of misusing state machinery and alleged attacks, intimidation, arson and false cases. The law is now before the Supreme Court, which referred challenges to a larger bench on September 23.

The 2023 Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office Act changed the appointment process for India’s chief election commissioner and two other top election commissioners. Its importance lies in who controls the recommendation process. A selection system can affect how the public views the independence of election officials.

Under the Act, appointments are based on recommendations from a committee containing the prime minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the Lok Sabha Opposition leader. This replaced the arrangement created by a Supreme Court judgment in March 2023. Under that earlier system, the Chief Justice of India sat on the committee instead of a Union Cabinet minister.

The new composition gives the government a 2:1 majority if members disagree. In February 2025, Gyanesh Kumar became chief election commissioner after Rahul Gandhi submitted a dissent note. The Act has been challenged in the Supreme Court, which referred the petitions to a larger bench on September 23.

The appointment committee has three members: the prime minister, a Union Cabinet minister and the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. It recommends the chief election commissioner and the two other top election commissioners. The key issue is not simply membership, but how votes are distributed when the members disagree.

The prime minister and Cabinet minister together form two government representatives. The Opposition leader has one seat. That creates a 2:1 government advantage, meaning the government can outvote the Opposition member on a disputed recommendation. Reddy objected to this structure, arguing that election commissioner appointments should not be controlled by the ruling political party.

The arrangement became especially visible when Gyanesh Kumar was appointed chief election commissioner in February 2025. Rahul Gandhi, the Opposition leader, submitted a dissent note at the selection meeting. The law remains under constitutional challenge, and the Supreme Court referred those petitions to a larger bench on September 23.

The Supreme Court’s March 2023 arrangement and Parliament’s later system differ mainly in the third member of the appointment committee. The court-created panel included the prime minister, the Lok Sabha Opposition leader and the Chief Justice of India. It was designed to include the judiciary alongside the government and Opposition.

Parliament’s law, passed in December 2023, replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet minister. The new committee therefore contains the prime minister, a Cabinet minister and the Opposition leader. Two members come from the Union government, so the government has a 2:1 majority if there is a difference of opinion.

That difference has become politically important. In February 2025, Gyanesh Kumar was appointed chief election commissioner while Rahul Gandhi submitted a dissent note. The Supreme Court later questioned the need for a Cabinet minister on the panel during a May hearing. On September 23, it referred challenges to the law’s constitutionality to a larger bench.

Public trust depends not only on whether election officials act fairly, but also on whether their appointment appears fair. If a ruling party can dominate the selection process, voters and political parties may suspect that the commission is not independent. Such doubts can weaken confidence in election decisions, even when an individual commissioner behaves honestly.

The 2023 law gives the Union government two of three seats on the appointment committee. Reddy argued that this structure could make an honest election commissioner face questions about impartiality. He said, “An examiner cannot be appointed by the student,” warning that the process itself must be neutral. The article presents this concern amid accusations of bias in Andhra Pradesh.

The issue remains unsettled. The law has been challenged before the Supreme Court, and the petitions were referred to a larger bench on September 23. The outcome could affect how India balances executive participation, Opposition oversight and public confidence in election administration.

The Election Commission of India conducts elections to Parliament and state legislative assemblies, along with presidential and vice-presidential elections. State election commissions conduct elections for local governments, including municipalities and village-level bodies. This division lets separate institutions manage elections at national, state and local levels.

The article focuses on the Andhra Pradesh state poll panel during local body election nominations. Reddy accused it of bias and alleged that YSR Congress candidates faced interference. He said nomination papers were allegedly snatched and that party workers were attacked, kidnapped and intimidated. These claims concern the state commission’s local-election responsibilities, not the Union Election Commission’s national role.

The wider appointment debate concerns election commissioners at all levels, according to Reddy. He argued that appointments should be neutral and not controlled by a ruling political party. The article does not describe specific Election Commission of India actions in these local elections. That distinction matters when assessing which institution has responsibility for a particular contest.

An independent and impartial election commission is important because elections must be accepted as fair by competing parties and voters. Officials oversee rules, nominations, polling and results. If they are trusted, losing candidates are more likely to accept outcomes through constitutional processes. If they are seen as politically controlled, disputes can become harder to resolve peacefully.

The article illustrates this concern through Reddy’s criticism of the appointment law and Andhra Pradesh’s state poll panel. He alleged that YSR Congress candidates had nomination papers snatched and that workers faced attacks, kidnappings and intimidation. The TDP denied no claims in the article, so these allegations are not established findings. Still, they show why neutral election administration matters.

The law gives the Union government a 2:1 advantage on the appointment committee. Reddy said this could raise doubts even about an honest commissioner. The Supreme Court has referred constitutional challenges to a larger bench, so its eventual consideration may shape future confidence in the appointment system.