New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list and hear early a petition challenging allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has been exercising authority unilaterally in the name of the Election Commission of India, and seeking his suspension from office.
Appearing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Vikas Singh, along with advocates Sudeep Chandra and Mudit Gupta, made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the plea filed by petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh. The petition urged the court to direct that Kumar should not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner pending the final hearing of the case. The Chief Justice agreed to list the matter next week.
The petition argues that the two Election Commissioners — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — must conduct the business of the poll body through unanimous decisions. It quoted the Supreme Court's 1995 judgment in the T.N. Seshan case, which held that Article 324(1) of the Constitution entrusts the conduct of elections to the Election Commission as a body and not to an individual, and that Election Commissioners "must have a say in decision making".
Treating the Chief Election Commissioner's word as final, the petition contends, would render the other Commissioners non-functional or ornamental. It also notes that the CEC does not enjoy a status superior to the other Election Commissioners merely because of the special protection governing his removal.
The plea invokes 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 Commission may regulate its own procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision, and that its business should as far as possible be transacted unanimously, with differences decided by majority.
According to the petition, Kumar has allegedly exercised power not as the Chairman of the Election Commission but as the Commission itself. It argues that neither Section 18 of the 2023 Act nor Article 324(3) of the Constitution gives him any individual title, since he is the Chairman of the Commission and not the Commission itself.
The petition further asks whether the CEC has lawful authority to act, communicate, or issue orders in the name of the Election Commission without the collegial process mandated by the statute — a question it says is properly examinable by way of quo warranto.
Referring to recent media reports, the plea also urged the court to direct the Election Commission to preserve all physical and electronic records relevant to the allegations of unilateral conduct, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence, work-allocation and delegation orders, IT-access records, server logs, audit trails, database-change histories and software deployment records, covering the period from October 1, 2025 till date. These include records relating to the functioning of the Commission, ERONet/ECINet, the alteration of Form-6, the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and the filing of appeals before the West Bengal Appellate Tribunals.
The petition additionally sought a direction that no further substantive alteration be made to Form-6, and that no eligible citizen be denied or prevented from seeking inclusion in the electoral roll solely for failing to furnish information contained in the disputed field.
The Election Commission has rejected reports of an internal rift, maintaining that its decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision, were taken unanimously.
Sources: The Hindu
Appearing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Vikas Singh, along with advocates Sudeep Chandra and Mudit Gupta, made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the plea filed by petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh. The petition urged the court to direct that Kumar should not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner pending the final hearing of the case. The Chief Justice agreed to list the matter next week.
The petition argues that the two Election Commissioners — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — must conduct the business of the poll body through unanimous decisions. It quoted the Supreme Court's 1995 judgment in the T.N. Seshan case, which held that Article 324(1) of the Constitution entrusts the conduct of elections to the Election Commission as a body and not to an individual, and that Election Commissioners "must have a say in decision making".
Treating the Chief Election Commissioner's word as final, the petition contends, would render the other Commissioners non-functional or ornamental. It also notes that the CEC does not enjoy a status superior to the other Election Commissioners merely because of the special protection governing his removal.
The plea invokes 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 Commission may regulate its own procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision, and that its business should as far as possible be transacted unanimously, with differences decided by majority.
According to the petition, Kumar has allegedly exercised power not as the Chairman of the Election Commission but as the Commission itself. It argues that neither Section 18 of the 2023 Act nor Article 324(3) of the Constitution gives him any individual title, since he is the Chairman of the Commission and not the Commission itself.
The petition further asks whether the CEC has lawful authority to act, communicate, or issue orders in the name of the Election Commission without the collegial process mandated by the statute — a question it says is properly examinable by way of quo warranto.
Referring to recent media reports, the plea also urged the court to direct the Election Commission to preserve all physical and electronic records relevant to the allegations of unilateral conduct, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence, work-allocation and delegation orders, IT-access records, server logs, audit trails, database-change histories and software deployment records, covering the period from October 1, 2025 till date. These include records relating to the functioning of the Commission, ERONet/ECINet, the alteration of Form-6, the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and the filing of appeals before the West Bengal Appellate Tribunals.
The petition additionally sought a direction that no further substantive alteration be made to Form-6, and that no eligible citizen be denied or prevented from seeking inclusion in the electoral roll solely for failing to furnish information contained in the disputed field.
The Election Commission has rejected reports of an internal rift, maintaining that its decisions, including on the Special Intensive Revision, were taken unanimously.
Sources: The Hindu
