The Supreme Court will hear next week a petition seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from exercising his functions, amid allegations that some decisions attributed to the Election Commission of India were taken without the approval of its other two members.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, agreed on Tuesday to list the petition after senior advocate Vikas Singh sought an early hearing. Singh told the court that the law governing the three-member Election Commission requires its business to be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with differences settled by majority.
The petition has been filed by Patna-based Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution. It challenges what it describes as the exercise of powers vested in the Election Commission by the CEC individually, and seeks a declaration that such powers must be exercised by the poll panel as a multi-member body.
Plea raises questions over SIR decisions
The petition comes amid reported differences between Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over several decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
According to the petition, the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over actions they allegedly believed had been taken without the Commission’s approval. The allegations include issues involving electoral-roll procedures, database access and management, and appeals filed in West Bengal in connection with the SIR exercise.
One issue cited in the plea concerns changes to Form 6, used for applications related to inclusion in electoral rolls. The petition refers to an objection allegedly recorded by Joshi in May 2026 over additional disclosures linked to the SIR process, with Sandhu subsequently stated to have concurred.
The petition also raises questions about access to and control of electoral-roll databases and refers to objections concerning the filing of appeals before West Bengal appellate tribunals.
ECI’s decision-making process under scrutiny
The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to examine whether decisions attributed to the Election Commission were taken in accordance with the statutory framework governing the poll panel.
The plea 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 deals with the Commission’s procedure and allocation of business and provides for decisions by unanimity as far as possible, with differences between members decided by majority.
The petition seeks a writ of quo warranto against Kumar, requiring him to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised powers belonging to the Commission. It also seeks his suspension from functioning as CEC pending adjudication of the case.
The petitioner has also sought preservation and production of records, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets and electronic records, to establish how the disputed decisions were taken.
The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions carry legal sanction and that differences of view among members are part of institutional deliberations. The petition itself acknowledges that the allegations concerning individual actions should not be treated as conclusively established solely on the basis of media reports and asks the court to examine the Commission’s primary records.
The Supreme Court’s agreement to list the matter next week means the court is set to consider the petition’s challenge to the functioning and decision-making process of the poll panel. It does not, at this stage, amount to a finding on the allegations against the CEC.