Supreme Court Plea Seeks Suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Challenges Alleged Unilateral ECI Decisions
A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a declaration that powers vested in the Election Commission of India (ECI) cannot be exercised unilaterally by its chairperson. The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, comes amid allegations that several decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to the petition, Sandhu and Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and administrative steps that they allegedly believed had been undertaken without the required approval of the full Commission. The petition, however, acknowledges that these allegations require examination of the ECI’s primary records, including minutes, file notings, approval documents and official orders.
The plea argues that Article 324 of the Constitution places the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Election Commission” as an institution rather than in the CEC individually. It therefore seeks a writ of quo warranto requiring Gyanesh Kumar to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised powers that, according to the petitioner, belong collectively to the Commission.
A central part of the legal argument concerns Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The petition relies on the provision’s framework for Commission business, including unanimous decision-making where possible and majority decision-making when differences arise between the CEC and Election Commissioners.
The petitioner has specifically asked the Supreme Court to declare that communications, orders, directions, appeals and other actions issued in the name of the ECI must be supported by a decision of the Commission taken according to the applicable unanimous or majority procedure. The plea also seeks directions for agendas and minutes of Commission meetings to be regularly circulated and recorded, along with authorization for actions taken in the Commission’s name.
One issue highlighted in the petition concerns changes to Form 6, the statutory application form used for registration of electors. The plea alleges that the form was modified in July 2026 to ask applicants whether they or their parents or grandparents appeared in an electoral roll connected with the previous Special Intensive Revision (SIR). It cites objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi in May and subsequently supported by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.
The petition also raises concerns about the management and centralisation of electoral-roll databases. It refers to objections allegedly raised by Election Commissioner Joshi regarding access and auditing of electoral-roll data and to subsequent concerns attributed to Sandhu about access to the ERONet system by statutory election authorities. The petitioner wants relevant server logs, access records and database-change histories preserved and produced for examination.
Another allegation relates to appeals filed before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals. The petition refers to approximately 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the name of the ECI against electors whose inclusion had reportedly been ordered by judicial officers. It seeks production of the authorization and decision-making records behind those appeals.
The petitioner has also sought an independent judicial inquiry or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the disputed decisions and preserve relevant electronic and physical records. The proposed investigation would examine documents, communications, database records, access logs and other material connected with the allegations.
Separately, another petition filed earlier this month seeks prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar and other officials over alleged statutory violations connected with electoral-roll revision and related decisions. That petition alleges that certain changes to Form 6, electoral-data management and other measures were undertaken without concurrence from the other Election Commissioners. These remain allegations before the court, rather than established judicial findings.
The latest petition therefore places a broader constitutional question before the Supreme Court: how the collective powers of the three-member Election Commission should be exercised when the CEC and Election Commissioners disagree. The immediate legal significance will depend on whether the Supreme Court admits the matter, seeks responses from the respondents and examines the underlying institutional records. As of the latest reports, the allegations contained in the petition have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
