Supreme Court to hear plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar next week
Decisions must be made unanimously or by majority in case of disagreement, as per law.
The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a petition filed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar next week. The petition alleges that he took unilateral decisions in the name of the Election Commission without the approval of the other two election commissioners, Sukbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to a report by Bar and Bench, senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the petition before Chief Justice Surya Kant. He stated that,
The purpose of a multi-member Election Commission is to make collective decisions. According to the law, decisions should be made by consensus or by majority in case of disagreement. Singh raised questions regarding the formal decision of the Commission on the entire process of Special Intensive Review (SIR).
In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant directed that the petition be listed for next week. The petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks a Quo Warranto writ, asking the Chief Election Commissioner on what basis he has the right to unilaterally exercise the collective decision-making power granted to the entire Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.
The petition alleges that,
Powers within the Commission have gradually become centralized in one position, there have been delays in providing meeting agendas and minutes, or they have not been provided at all, changes have been made to processes related to the electoral rolls, and appeals have been filed without the knowledge or approval of the other two election commissioners.
The petitioner has cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. According to this, the functioning of the Commission should be conducted by consensus. In case of disagreement, decisions should be made by majority opinion. According to the petition, between October 28, 2025, and August 14, 2026, both election commissioners raised objections on at least 14 different occasions regarding steps taken without the approval of the Commission.
The petitioner argues that if decisions affecting the electoral rolls and voting rights are being taken by the Chief Election Commissioner alone, rather than by the two election commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner, it raises serious constitutional questions.
The petition demands that if the Chief Election Commissioner has exercised his collective power without a decision of the Commission as per Section 18, such actions should be declared illegal. It also seeks to declare the SIR and all actions, decisions, and directives made under it as null and void from the outset. The petition has been filed through advocate Mudit Gupta.
This petition was filed a few days after a report by The Indian Express which stated that election commissioners Sukbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times regarding decisions and orders related to the SIR. According to the report, these included changes to Form 6 and issues related to the management of electoral roll data. Some decisions were made without their knowledge or against their recommendations.
The petitioner has requested the Supreme Court to direct the competent authority to,
file a complaint and initiate prosecution against Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials found responsible under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This section provides for penalties for violations of certain official duties related to the preparation, revision, or correction of electoral rolls.
The petition alleges that,
changes were made to Form 6 without authority and consensus decisions, the database of electoral rolls was centralized, and names of eligible voters were not restored through the ECINet system. It also alleges that 16.10 lakh appeals challenging the inclusion of voters' names in West Bengal were filed in the name of the Election Commission.
The petitioner has cited Section 18 of the Act related to the Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners. According to this provision, in case of disagreement between the Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners, decisions should be made by majority opinion.
According to the petition,
in May 2026, Vivek Joshi objected to changes in Form 6, stating that the statutory form cannot be changed without relevant amendments to the Electoral Registration Rules, 1960. Sukbir Singh Sandhu also agreed with this objection. Nevertheless, the petition alleges that a change was made to ECINet portal regarding Form 6, which required information related to the presence of the applicant or their relatives in the previous SIR electoral rolls. According to the petition, Sandhu later termed this change as 'unauthorized and illegal.'
The petitioner has demanded the formation of an independent judicial inquiry commission or Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court judge, which should also include cybersecurity and IT experts. The proposed inquiry is to conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases and investigate the circumstances under which 13 crore names were removed during the SIR across 30 states and union territories. There is also a demand to establish individual accountability in the case of the 16.10 lakh appeals filed in West Bengal.
The petition demands the cancellation of changes made to ECINet and ERONet portals regarding Form 6, and the restoration of the original form as prescribed in the rules. Additionally, there is a request to annul the alleged 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the name of the Election Commission in the appellate tribunals of West Bengal. Instructions have also been sought to preserve server logs, databases, communication records, and metadata related to ECINet and ERONet from October 1, 2025, until the investigation is completed.
The petition names the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Cabinet Secretary, Manish Garg, and Seema Khanna as respondents. The Supreme Court's decision on the allegations made in the petition is still pending.