Plea Seeking Gyanesh Kumar’s Suspension Over ECI Powers Listed Before SC
The Supreme Court will examine a plea questioning whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar exercised ECI powers individually without approval from other commissioners.
By Pranjal Gupta
New Delhi, September 29: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a plea seeking to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has been acting individually on behalf of the entire Election Commission of India (ECI). The plea seeks the CEC’s suspension if the court finds that he acted without the authorisation of the full Commission, and asks that such decisions be declared unauthorised. The court listed the matter for hearing next week.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the matter, which was represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. He submitted that the ECI is a multi-member body and that its decisions should be taken unanimously or by majority.
“The way the Election Commission is functioning, there is serious doubt over whether the decisions are unanimous,” Singh said.
Seeking the CEC’s suspension if the alleged actions are found to be unauthorised, the plea also sought a direction that any appointment to the post arising from the vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.
“Direct that respondent No. 3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,” the plea stated.
“Respondent No. 3 (CEC) ought to be suspended from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner of India, pending final hearing of the present petition, so as to restore the multi-member character of the Election Commission,” it said.
Plea questions CEC’s individual exercise of ECI powers
The petitioner submitted that the demand for an inquiry does not concern any individual but the Election Commission as a whole. The Constitution, it argued, does not vest all powers in one official but in the “Commission” as a whole.
Referring to the constitutional scheme, the petitioner said it “deliberately separated membership of the Commission from the chairmanship of the Commission, and separated the chairmanship of the Commission from the Commission’s power”.
The plea also raised concerns over the role of the current CEC following a report by The Indian Express on an alleged “internal rift” within the Election Commission. The report said Gyanesh Kumar took several key decisions, including amendments to Form 6, which deals with the addition of voters, without consulting the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
“Declare that the powers vested under Article 324 of the Constitution are constitutionally required to be exercised by the ECI as a multi-member collegial body…, and that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other act may be issued or represented as an act of the Election Commission save pursuant to a decision of the Commission taken unanimously or, upon disagreement, by majority…,” the plea said.
The plea relied on written objections recorded by the two election commissioners and said the underlying allegations should not be treated as conclusively established merely on the basis of media reports.
Form 6 alteration, database access under scrutiny
It urged the court to call for the Commission’s primary records, including minutes, agendas, approval sheets, file notings, work-allocation orders, IT access records, server logs and database-change histories.
One of the issues raised in the plea concerns the alteration of Form 6, the statutory form used in connection with electoral roll registration.
The petition submitted that Joshi recorded an objection on May 16, 2026, stating that the form could not lawfully be altered to require additional disclosures related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Sandhu is stated to have concurred with the objection on May 19, the plea said.
The petition also referred to concerns recorded by Joshi regarding the alleged gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and sought an independent audit of database access credentials.
It further referred to objections concerning access by field-level statutory officers to the ECINet system.
“Direct Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Election Commission and the CEC) to preserve, without alteration, deletion, destruction, overwriting or archival, all physical and electronic records relevant to the present petition, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence ...,” it said.
The plea also referred to appeals filed in the name of the Election Commission before appellate tribunals in West Bengal.
It further referred to an alleged objection by Sandhu seeking to know who had authorised the appeals and under what authority.
The petition urged the court to examine the legality of the disputed Form 6 alteration and certain IT work-allocation measures and, subject to the records produced before it, determine the authorisation of the appeals filed in West Bengal.
(With PTI Inputs)
