New Delhi [India], October 5 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally, saying the Election Commission and others must first be heard.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
“Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…,” observed the bench.
The petition relied on a report claiming that 14 crucial SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate suspension of the CEC, contending that the alleged unilateral decisions posed a serious threat to electoral democracy.
Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that ECI decisions were required to be unanimous or, failing that, taken by majority.
As Singh sought suspension of the CEC, the bench questioned the feasibility of suspending the CEC, observing that it could stall the functioning of the poll panel.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked.
Singh responded that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions.
The bench said it would have to first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents. CJI Kant observed that the statutory framework was mandatory and said, “If there is any violation, we will undo.”
Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the court could grant such relief without hearing the ECI, saying that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could declare them ultra vires.
The CJI further cautioned that the court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The plea challenged the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.
The plea has sought a direction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.
The petition relied on at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners.
A key grievance concerns the alteration of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Commissioner Joshi had allegedly objected that the form could not be changed to require SIR-linked disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, an objection subsequently endorsed by Sandhu.
The petition also raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet/ECINet by statutory field-level authorities. Joshi had proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the authority of the ECI’s Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. Sandhu allegedly questioned who had authorised the filing of the appeals and under what authority.
The plea further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, a direction against further substantive alteration of Form 6, and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication. The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and requiring the Commission’s business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners. (ANI)
SC declines ex-parte plea to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks ECI’s response over SIR decisions
