Supreme Court issues notice to CEC Gyanesh Kumar
Petitions against Gyanesh Kumar were filed regarding decisions linked to Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
The Supreme Court issued a notice to CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Monday, seeking his response. The court also refused to issue an order for the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar.
The petitions against Gyanesh Kumar were filed concerning decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
It is alleged that,
about 14 decisions related to SIR were taken without the consent of two other election commissioners. The petitioners have demanded the annulment of these decisions, prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar, and an SIT investigation into the removal of voters' names in SIR. They have also requested that the CEC be kept away from the functioning of the position until a final decision is made.
According to a report by Live Law, the petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh from Patna. It states that the Election Commission is a multi-member body. Therefore, its decisions cannot be taken unilaterally. A demand has been made to investigate the original records of the commission to ascertain whether the controversial steps were taken in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions. As an interim relief,
the petition sought the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar from the CEC position.
Another petition has been filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. It demands the annulment of the 14 decisions taken unilaterally. The petition also calls for the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry commission or SIT under the chairmanship of a retired Supreme Court judge, which should also include cyber security and IT experts. The proposed investigation seeks to conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases.
It has also been demanded to investigate the circumstances under which 13 crore names were removed across 30 states and union territories during SIR.
The petition requests that the competent authority be directed to file a complaint and initiate proceedings under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. This action has been sought against Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, and other officials found responsible. The petition cites Section 32, which provides for punishment for violations of governmental duties related to the preparation, amendment, or correction of the electoral rolls.
The petitioner has also alleged that changes were made to Form 6 without permission. Additionally, there are allegations of centralizing the voter list database.
The petition states that eligible voters' names were not restored through the ECINet system. It also mentions that 16.10 lakh appeals have been filed in West Bengal challenging the inclusion of voters listed in the name of the ECI.
This entire matter began with areport by Indian Express, which mentioned the differences among Election Commission officials regarding SIR. According to the report, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had repeatedly expressed concerns about the SIR process within the election panel. The report states that all three officials oversaw the SIR process, but Sandhu and Joshi formally raised objections at least 14 times in the past 10 months, with 4 objections filed on the same day. The report also noted that these objections were regarding decisions and orders issued without the knowledge of Sandhu and Joshi.
The opposition is once again planning to bring an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar. In April 2026, the opposition had also submitted an impeachment notice against Gyanesh Kumar, but that proposal was rejected in the Lok Sabha, while it is still pending in the Rajya Sabha.
According to sources, this time the impeachment motion is being led by the Congress. The Congress has spoken to opposition parties on this issue. It is likely to be presented within the next 2 weeks. Another case has also reached the Supreme Court, where a lawyer has written to the Attorney General of India demanding contempt proceedings against Gyanesh Kumar.