Archive · 5 Oct 2026
Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Challenging CEC’s Unilateral Decisions
The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about who can make decisions for India’s Election Commission.
The petitions say the Chief Election Commissioner should not make decisions for the whole Commission by himself.
They point to the Constitution and a 2023 law, which they say require the commissioners to decide matters together.
The petitions also cite 14 objections reportedly raised by the other two commissioners.
Those objections involved voter lists, access to election data, and other procedures.
One petition asks for an investigation into the alleged decisions.
The Election Commission says written objections are a normal part of how a group can work through disagreements.
The dispute is also connected to a voter-list revision that critics say removed eligible voters.
The Commission says the revision is intended to remove deceased, relocated, and duplicate voters.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear petitions on Monday questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar can exercise powers assigned to the Election Commission alone.
The petitions cite Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 law, arguing that the multi-member Commission must make decisions collectively, with unresolved matters decided by majority.
One petition seeks cancellation of 14 decisions allegedly taken without the other commissioners’ approval, while another seeks an inquiry by an independent commission or a Special Investigation Team led by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The alleged objections concern voter registrations and deletions, electoral-roll data access, Form 6 changes, meeting records, foreign travel, and appeals in West Bengal.
The Election Commission says internal objections are established procedures and reported differences do not represent an institutional rupture; it rejects wrongdoing allegations over the voter-roll revision.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Election Commission of India, and petitioners challenging alleged unilateral decisions.
- What
- The court is scheduled to hear petitions about the CEC’s authority to exercise powers assigned to the Commission and allegations concerning voter-roll decisions.
- When
- Monday; the articles do not specify the hearing date.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
- Why
- The petitions seek enforcement of collective decision-making under Article 324 and the 2023 law governing election commissioners.
Petitioners and critics
Election Commission and BJP
Authority to make Commission decisions
Petitioners and critics
The petitions argue that powers vested in the Election Commission must be exercised through the collective framework, not by the CEC alone.
Election Commission and BJP
The ECI says reported differences and internal written objections are established mechanisms and do not constitute an institutional rupture.
Alleged unilateral decisions
Petitioners and critics
The petitions cite 14 alleged objections and seek action, including cancellation of decisions and an independent investigation.
Election Commission and BJP
The ECI rejects allegations of wrongdoing; the articles do not report a specific response from Kumar to the allegations against him.
Effects of voter-roll revision
Petitioners and critics
Critics allege the Special Intensive Revision has removed eligible voters and that electoral-list changes could benefit the BJP.
Election Commission and BJP
The ECI says the exercise removes deceased, relocated, and duplicate voters and helps prevent foreign illegal immigrants from being included; the BJP denies claims that revisions could benefit it.
- Scheduled hearing
- Monday; the date is not specified in the articles.
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- Chief Election Commissioner
- Gyanesh Kumar.
- Constitutional provision cited
- Article 324.
- Statutory provision cited
- Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
- Reported objections
- The petitions cite at least 14 objections attributed to fellow commissioners between October 2025 and August 2026.
- Relief sought
- Petitions seek enforcement of collective decision-making; one also seeks cancellation of 14 alleged decisions and an independent inquiry or an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- Election Commission position
- The ECI says internal objections and written notes are established mechanisms and reported differences do not amount to an institutional rupture.
