Election Commission Row: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
Election Commission Row: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
M.U.H
29/09/202615
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list a fresh plea questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar could unilaterally decide on behalf of the Election Commission without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The senior counsel contended that the statutory scheme requires decisions of the multi-member Commission to be unanimous or by majority and sought an early hearing on the matter.
Singh contended that the purpose of having a multi-member Commission, as stated in the statute, is that decisions must be unanimous or by majority.
He said that given how the Election Commission has functioned, there is "serious doubt" about whether a decision by the Election Commission was made for the entire SIR exercise. “Because if the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then...? What the court has also decided is on the basis that it is a commission's decision. So, it is a serious issue. I am only requesting," submitted Singh.
The plea in Supreme Court comes days after a report by The Indian Express revealed that two Election Commissioners recorded formal objections at least 14 times over ten months regarding internal decisions made under CEC Kumar. They raised concerns over changes made to Form 6 (the voter registration form) and the centralisation of electoral roll software in Delhi.
ECI, in its statement after the report, said all key decisions had the unanimous approval of all three members, describing internal notes as normal discussions.
According to a counsel familiar with the Supreme Court proceedings, the apex court agreed to list the matter next week.
The plea sought a direction calling upon Gyanesh Kumar to show the authority under which he has acted, and continues to act, as if entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission as a body, notwithstanding that Article 324(3) constitutes him only Chairman of the Commission and vests in him no individual title to the Commission's collective authority.
The plea said Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections in “an Election Commission”, and not in the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.
“Form-6 is prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. If, as recorded on file by Commissioner Joshi on 16 May 2026 and concurred in by Commissioner Sandhu on 19 May 2026, the introduction of an SIR-linked, non-omissible field into Form-6 required an amendment to the Rules, the legal basis for introducing that requirement without such amendment necessarily arises for determination”, said the plea.
The plea said Kumar's continuance in office during the pendency of sustained, contemporaneous, on-record dissent by Joshi and Sandhu casts serious doubt upon the integrity of every electoral-roll exercise and election conducted during that period, including the Special Intensive Revision itself.
The plea contended that this court’s own orders concerning the SIR proceeded on the representation that the exercise was undertaken by and on behalf of the Election Commission as a collegial body and not at the instance of Kumar alone.
