NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, SEPT 29
The Supreme Court is set to examine next week a constitutional challenge to the functioning of the Election Commission under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with a PIL alleging that powers vested in the multi-member poll panel were exercised without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners—an allegation the Commission has rejected, maintaining that its decisions were unanimously taken.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a Public Interest Litigation seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioning whether decisions attributed to the Election Commission were taken with the approval of its full three-member composition.
- Three-judge Bench to hear plea next week seeking suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar pending final adjudication
- Petition invokes Article 324 and argues electoral powers vest in Commission, not CEC individually
- Plea cites 14 objections reportedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi over 10 months
- Form-6 changes, voter database control, IT work allocation and West Bengal appeals under scrutiny
- ECI maintains its decisions, including SIR, were unanimously approved by the full Commission
- Petitioner seeks preservation and production of minutes, files, approval records, server logs and database histories
The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under the statutory framework governing the Election Commission, decisions of the multi-member body must be unanimous or, where there is disagreement, taken by majority.
“The way the Election Commission is functioning, there is serious doubt over whether the decisions are unanimous,” he submitted.
The CJI said: “We will list this next week.”
What the PIL puts before the Supreme Court
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh of Patna, seeks judicial examination of whether the CEC individually exercised powers that, under the constitutional scheme, belong to the Election Commission as a collective body.
It asks the court to declare such actions, if established, unauthorised and to take appropriate legal action.
The petitioner has also sought an interim direction that Kumar should not exercise the functions of CEC pending final adjudication and that the Commission’s business during that period be conducted by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The plea further seeks a direction that any appointment to a resulting vacancy be made through a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.
The petition says: “This petition concerns not the fortunes of any individual constitutional functionary, but the constitutional identity of the Election Commission of India itself.”
It argues that Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in “a Commission”, rather than in the CEC individually.
14 objections form the heart of challenge
A central plank of the petition is a report that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and orders which, according to the reported objections, were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The reported objections cover a range of issues, including communications allegedly issued in the name of the Commission, absence of agendas and minutes, changes to Form-6, access and control of the ERONet/ECINet electoral-roll database, IT-related work allocation and appeals filed before West Bengal appellate tribunals.
The petition itself stresses that these allegations should not be treated as conclusively established merely on the basis of media reports and asks the Supreme Court to examine the Commission’s primary records.
The petitioner seeks access to minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, work-allocation orders, IT-access records, server logs and database-change histories.
Form-6 and voter database under judicial lens
One of the specific issues concerns the alteration of Form-6, the statutory form used for registration of voters.
According to the petition, Joshi recorded an objection on May 16, 2026, arguing that the form could not lawfully be altered to require additional disclosures relating to the Special Intensive Revision without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu is stated to have concurred with the objection on May 19.
The petition also refers to concerns over what it describes as the gradual centralisation of electoral-roll database control and seeks an independent audit of database-access credentials.
It further raises questions concerning field-level statutory officers’ access to the ECINet system and asks the court to examine related IT work-allocation decisions.
The plea seeks a direction to preserve all relevant physical and electronic records, including correspondence, minutes, approval documents and technical records.
ECI contests suggestion of unilateral decision-making
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that its decisions were being taken unilaterally.
In its response to reports about the internal objections, the Commission said that operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the process were part of normal administrative deliberations and that all decisions taken by the Commission, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous decisions of the full Commission.
The Commission has also maintained that focusing on individual internal notes or objections without considering the subsequent decision-making process presents only part of the picture. It subsequently announced decisions on issues including Form-6, electoral-roll database access and IT oversight.
The reported internal objections and the Commission’s response therefore present competing accounts of the decision-making process, with the Supreme Court now being asked to examine the legal and constitutional questions raised by the petitioner.
What the Supreme Court may examine
Apart from seeking Kumar’s suspension pending final hearing, the PIL asks the court to declare that powers under Article 324 must be exercised by the Election Commission as a multi-member body.
It seeks a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other act may be represented as an act of the Election Commission unless it follows a decision taken unanimously or, in case of disagreement, by majority.
The petition also asks the court to examine the legality of the disputed Form-6 alteration, certain IT work-allocation measures, electoral database controls and the authorisation of appeals filed in the Commission’s name before West Bengal appellate tribunals.
The Supreme Court’s decision to list the matter next week means the issues raised in the PIL are now set to receive judicial consideration. No finding has yet been made by the court on the allegations contained in the petition.
