सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त ग्यानेश कुमार के विरुद्ध दायर याचिका को शीघ्र सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किया

ECI Row : Supreme Court To Hear Next Week Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar & SIR Decisions

Debby Jain

29 Sept 2026 11:30 AM IST

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed early listing of a petition seeking, among other reliefs, suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought early listing of the plea.

During the hearing, Singh submitted that the Election Commission is a multi-member body and that, under the statutory framework, its business is required to be transacted unanimously as far as possible, with differences being decided by majority.

"If the Commission has not taken unanimous decision, it's a serious issue," Singh submitted.

Referring specifically to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, Singh submitted that there was serious doubt as to whether the decision to undertake the exercise was in fact a decision of the Commission, in view of objections allegedly recorded by the other two Election Commissioners.

"The purpose of having a multi-member Commission... statute says that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority. Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned there is serious doubt whether there was a decision of the Election Commission for this entire exercise (SIR). Because if the Commission has not taken unanimous decision, then... The Court has also said that it's the Commission's decision. It's a serious issue. I am only requesting for early listing," Singh submitted.

CJI Surya Kant agreed to list the matter next week.

The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks a declaration that the powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 must be exercised by the Commission as a multi-member body and cannot be exercised individually by the CEC.

The plea has been filed in the context of alleged objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against various decisions taken in the name of the ECI. According to the petition, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning steps which they allegedly considered to have been taken without the approval of the Commission.

The petitioner relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision states that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision, that business shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and that differences between the CEC and Election Commissioners are to be decided by majority.

The plea accordingly seeks a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other action can be issued or represented as an act of the ECI unless supported by a decision taken unanimously or, where there is disagreement, by majority.

It also seeks a writ of quo warranto calling upon CEC Gyanesh Kumar to show under what authority he has allegedly acted as though he were individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission.

The petition cites several instances in support of its allegations, including objections allegedly raised by the two Election Commissioners concerning alteration of Form 6, the management and access of the electoral-roll database, and the filing of appeals in West Bengal relating to the SIR process.

With regard to Form 6, the plea claims that the form was altered in July 2026 to require applicants to state whether they, their parents or grandparents existed in the electoral roll of the last SIR. It relies on a May 2026 objection allegedly recorded by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi, with Sukhbir Singh Sandhu stated to have concurred.

The petition also refers to alleged concerns raised by Joshi regarding the "gradual centralisation" of the electoral-roll database and a subsequent communication attributed to Sandhu concerning access to the ERONet portal.

Another issue cited concerns approximately 16.10 lakh appeals allegedly filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against electors whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. The petition relies on an August 12, 2026 noting attributed to Sandhu questioning who had authorised the filing of those appeals.

The petitioner, however, has itself stated that it is not asking the Supreme Court to determine at the first instance whether each of the disputed actions was in fact taken without lawful Commission authority. It seeks production of the ECI's primary records, including minutes, file notings, approval sheets, orders and other records, to determine the issue.

Apart from suspension of the CEC pending adjudication, the petition seeks preservation and production of the ECI's physical and electronic records and constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The petition has been drawn by Adv Sudeep Chandra and filed through Mudit Gupta AOR.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News