The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre, Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other senior poll officials on petitions alleging that crucial decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally by the CEC without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also declined, at this stage, to grant an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Kumar, holding that the respondents must first be afforded an opportunity to explain the decision-making process.
The Court has sought replies not only from the CEC but also from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The Union government and the ECI have also been called upon to respond to the allegations.
The petitions arise from allegations that several decisions connected with the SIR exercise were issued in the name of the Election Commission despite objections allegedly recorded by Sandhu and Joshi. According to the material placed before the Court, the two Election Commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various steps undertaken in connection with electoral-roll revision.
The challenge centres on the statutory architecture governing a multi-member Election Commission. The petitioners rely upon Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the business of the Commission should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, the matter is to be determined by majority.
The petitioners contend that the constitutional power vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised by an individual member as though it were a personal statutory authority. They have alleged that the purported exercise of collective powers by the CEC, without the participation or approval mandated by law, raises a serious question concerning the validity of decisions affecting electoral rolls and, consequently, the right of citizens to participate in elections.
During the hearing, the Court indicated that it would examine the underlying records before arriving at any conclusion regarding the legality of the impugned decisions. The Bench made it clear that the Court could not proceed merely on the basis of media reports and would require the concerned constitutional authority to place its version and relevant records before it.
The Bench also indicated that if the records ultimately establish that particular decisions were taken contrary to the statutory requirement of unanimity or majority, the Court could intervene and set aside such decisions. The Court stressed that the statutory framework governing the ECI was binding and that any action found to be inconsistent with law could be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
The plea seeking suspension of the CEC was pressed by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who argued that the alleged unilateral exercise of power warranted immediate judicial intervention. The Bench, however, was reluctant to grant such relief without hearing the respondents, particularly given the institutional consequences of suspending the head of the constitutional election machinery.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the Court could, without hearing the ECI, presume that all the decisions under challenge had been taken unilaterally. The Bench indicated that if the official records demonstrated that a particular decision lacked the requisite consensus or majority, the Court could then examine its legal validity.
The connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks, among other reliefs, action against the CEC and other officials for alleged violations of statutory duties. It also seeks an independent judicial inquiry or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts assisting in the investigation.
The petition further seeks a forensic examination of the ECINet and ERONet systems and an investigation into the alleged deletion of around 13 crore names from electoral rolls across 30 States and Union Territories during the SIR exercise. It also raises allegations concerning purported modifications to Form 6, the mechanism for enrolment of eligible voters, and the restoration of names through the ECI’s digital systems.
Another relief sought is initiation of prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against officials allegedly responsible for breaches of statutory duty in connection with the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls. The petition also raises questions concerning approximately 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal and seeks preservation of relevant electronic records, including server logs, databases, communications and metadata.
The petitioners have also sought a declaration that decisions, directions and consequential measures concerning the SIR exercise taken without the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed participation of the Commission are ultra vires and void ab initio. The earlier petition seeking a writ of quo warranto similarly calls upon the CEC to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised powers vested collectively in the Commission.
The Supreme Court, however, has not at this stage returned any finding on the allegations of unilateral decision-making, voter deletions or statutory violations. By issuing notice, the Court has called upon the constitutional authorities and individual officials concerned to place their version and records before it. The matter will be considered further after the responses are received.
The post Supreme Court seeks ECI, Centre response on challenge to CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s alleged unilateral decisions appeared first on India Legal.