The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel's powers are being exercised under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The plea questions whether the CEC can individually exercise or represent powers vested constitutionally and statutorily in the multi-member Election Commission.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also sought responses from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the credibility of the ECI had been undermined and that the CEC was acting contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body.
Vikas Singh submitted that interim measures were required, arguing that the present functioning of the ECI had left citizens feeling unsafe. "Today, the very CEC as a constitutional authority is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed," the senior counsel submitted.
However, the CJI-led Bench said the court would first require authenticated information on the allegations and noted that any decision subsequently found to be unlawful could be annulled.
"Let's first have authenticated information on that (the allegations). We can always annul any decision," the Supreme Court said.
Singh alternatively urged the apex court to direct that, until the next date of hearing, decisions of the ECI be taken only unanimously. The Bench, however, observed that decisions of the Commission are required to be either unanimous or, in the absence of unanimity, decided by majority.
The court also cautioned that the petitioner was relying on media reports and said it could not pass an order solely on that basis.
"A news report may be 100% correct, partially correct or incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today. We would definitely want their response," the court observed.
The Bench further said, "If any decision taken by Election Commission is found to be not in accordance with law, then we will annul it," while adding, "We presume that decisions are taken by Election Commission as per law."
The court also sought clarity over allegations concerning changes to Form 6, with the Bench observing, "Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified."
The notices were issued against the backdrop of reports claiming differences between CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi over decisions and orders related to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The plea, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, challenges decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Kumar without the concurrence of his two colleagues. It seeks a determination on whether the CEC has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole and, if so, whether such actions should be declared unauthorised.
The petition relies on written communications and file notings attributed to Sandhu and Joshi, who allegedly recorded objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and steps purportedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.
The objections detailed in the plea relate to communications and orders allegedly issued without the poll body's approval, the absence of agendas before and minutes after meetings, foreign travel undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and the filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.
The plea also refers to concerns allegedly raised by the two Election Commissioners over the "gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database" and changes in the work allocation of the poll body's IT establishment.
The petition argues that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the "Commission" and not in an individual CEC. It also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for collective decision-making.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the poll body except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the Commission. It has also sought mandatory directions to ensure compliance with the collective decision-making framework and the production and preservation of relevant records concerning the disputed decisions.
The plea further seeks suspension of Gyanesh Kumar pending the final hearing and asks that the business of the Commission during that period be conducted by the two other Election Commissioners. It also seeks directions regarding any appointment to a resulting vacancy.
As per the case status on the Supreme Court's official website, the matter is tentatively listed for hearing on October 26. The Centre and the ECI have been asked to respond within a week.
Meanwhile, the Election Commission has maintained that differences between the Commissioners do not amount to an institutional "rupture", arguing that internal objections and written notes are established mechanisms in a multi-member constitutional body.
The ECI has also said that its decisions, including those relating to the SIR exercise, were unanimous and that differences raised by individual Commissioners form part of the normal deliberative and administrative process. The poll panel has maintained that all its orders carry legal sanction and are issued in accordance with established statutory procedures.
