The Supreme Court on Monday granted an early listing for a petition that seeks, among other remedies, the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The petition also asks the court to declare that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot be taken unilaterally by its chairman.
Petition argues the Commission must act collectively
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh raised the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, urging that the case be placed on the court’s docket as soon as possible. Singh emphasized that the ECI is statutorily a multi‑member institution, and that its business is required to be conducted unanimously wherever feasible, with any disagreements to be resolved by a majority vote.
“If the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, it raises a serious concern,” Singh told the bench. He specifically highlighted the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, questioning whether the decision to launch the exercise reflected a genuine collective resolution of the Commission, given alleged objections from the two other Election Commissioners.
Singh argued that the statutory framework, particularly Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, mandates that the Commission may regulate its procedures and allocation of business by unanimous decision, and that, as far as possible, business should be transacted unanimously. Where unanimity is not achievable, the Act directs that differences be settled by a majority.
Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to list the matter for hearing next week, signalling the court’s willingness to examine the procedural proprieties of the Commission’s recent actions.
Alleged procedural breaches and specific objections
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that the powers conferred on the ECI by Article 324 must be exercised by the Commission as a whole, not by the CEC acting alone. The filing references a series of 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, Sandhu and Joshi lodged at least fourteen objections between October 2025 and August 2026, each pertaining to actions the petitioners allege were undertaken without the requisite collective approval. The petition relies on these objections to demonstrate a pattern of unilateral decision‑making.
One highlighted instance concerns the alteration of Form 6 in July 2026. The revised form required applicants to indicate whether they, their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll of the last SIR. The petition cites a May 2026 objection by Commissioner Joshi, with Sandhu reportedly concurring, suggesting that the change was not unanimously endorsed.
Another set of concerns relates to the management of the electoral‑roll database. The petition alleges that Commissioner Joshi warned of a “gradual centralisation” of the database, while a subsequent communication attributed to Sandhu addressed access to the ERONet portal, again implying that key decisions were taken without full Commission consensus.
The filing also points to approximately 16.10 lakh appeals filed in West Bengal appellate tribunals against electors whose inclusion had been ordered by judicial officers. An August 12 2026 note from Sandhu, referenced in the petition, questions who authorised those appeals, suggesting that the filing may have been carried out in the name of the ECI without proper internal sanction.
Relief sought and next steps
Rather than asking the Supreme Court to adjudicate each disputed action, the petitioner seeks the production of the ECI’s primary records – minutes, file notings, approval sheets, orders and related documents – to enable a thorough assessment of whether the Commission’s statutory procedures were followed.
In addition to the request for record production, the petition asks for a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or any other action can be represented as an act of the ECI unless it is supported by a unanimous decision or, where unanimity is lacking, by a majority decision.
The filing also includes a writ of quo warranto directed at CEC Gyanesh Kumar, demanding that he demonstrate the authority under which he allegedly acted as though he possessed individual power to exercise the collective functions assigned to the Commission by Article 324.
Beyond the declaratory relief, the petitioner seeks the suspension of the CEC pending the outcome of the adjudication, preservation and production of both physical and electronic records of the ECI, and the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the alleged breaches.
The petition was drafted by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through Mudit Gupta, the authorized officer of record. With the Supreme Court’s decision to list the matter next week, the case is set to move from procedural arguments before the bench to a substantive hearing that could reshape the internal decision‑making dynamics of India’s top electoral authority.
If the court ultimately affirms the petition’s claims, it could impose a binding requirement that all future actions of the Election Commission be taken only after a clear, documented consensus – either unanimous or by majority – among its members. Such a ruling would have far‑reaching implications for the conduct of electoral administration, the handling of reforms like the SIR, and the overall transparency of the Commission’s internal processes.
Be First to Comment