Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Seeks Records Before Acting on CEC Allegations
Some people asked the Supreme Court to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner.
They said decisions about updating voter lists were made without agreement from the other two Election Commissioners.
The Court did not suspend him for now.
It said it needs to examine reliable records, not rely only on a newspaper report.
The Court sent notices to the Election Commission and its officials.
The Commission says its decisions were unanimous.
It also says Form 6 was not changed, but an extra declaration is needed for this special voter-list exercise.
The Court said a decision could be stopped later if records show that required procedures were not followed.
On October 5, the Supreme Court declined interim relief seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension.
The petitions alleged SIR decisions were made without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
The bench issued notices to the Election Commission of India, the CEC and the other Election Commissioners.
The judges said a newspaper report alone was insufficient for an order and stressed the need to examine authentic records.
The ECI says SIR decisions were unanimous and that Form 6 remains unchanged, with a separate declaration required for the revision.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the petitioners.
- What
- The Court declined interim relief seeking Kumar’s suspension, issued notices and said it would need authentic records to assess the allegations.
- When
- October 5; the year is not specified in the article.
- Where
- Bengaluru, according to the article’s dateline.
- Why
- The petitions alleged that decisions on the Special Intensive Revision were made without the other two Election Commissioners’ concurrence; the Court said a newspaper report alone could not support an order.
Petitioners’ allegations
Election Commission’s position
Decision-making on SIR
Petitioners’ allegations
The petitions alleged that decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
Election Commission’s position
The ECI says differences during deliberations are routine and that final decisions, including those concerning SIR, were unanimous.
Form 6 declaration
Petitioners’ allegations
Criticism claimed the ECI modified Form 6 without legal authority.
Election Commission’s position
The ECI says Form 6 was not altered; the declaration is supplementary documentation for SIR, and it cites the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR judgment in support.
- Court action
- Declined interim relief seeking suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner and issued notices.
- Chief Election Commissioner
- Gyanesh Kumar.
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- Issue under challenge
- Whether SIR decisions were taken without concurrence from the other two Election Commissioners.
- ECI position on decisions
- The Commission says internal differences are routine and SIR decisions were unanimous.
- Form 6 position
- The ECI says Form 6 remains the prescribed application and the SIR declaration is additional documentation, not a modification of the form.
- Records and reporting
- The Court said it must examine authentic records and cannot base an order solely on a newspaper report.