Archive · 5 Oct 2026
Supreme Court Seeks Replies, Declines to Suspend Election Chief
The Supreme Court is looking at complaints about how India’s Election Commission made some decisions about voter lists.
The complaints say Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar may have made decisions without the other commissioners’ agreement.
The Court did not suspend Kumar for now.
It asked the Election Commission, the government and other officials to respond before deciding what to do next.
Reports say two commissioners raised objections many times.
The Election Commission says questions and differences during discussions are normal, and says the schedule for the voter-list revision was agreed unanimously.
The Court said it could undo decisions if the proper process was not followed.
It has not yet decided whether the allegations are true.
The Supreme Court declined to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar while it considers petitions over alleged unilateral decisions in the Election Commission.
The bench issued notices to the Election Commission, the Centre, Kumar and other officials, seeking responses before deciding on interim relief.
Petitions allege some decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were made without the other commissioners’ knowledge or the required unanimous or majority process.
Reports cited in the petitions say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months, including over Form 6 and voter data.
The Election Commission says draft-stage questions and differences are normal and that SIR schedule decisions were unanimous; the Court said it could revisit decisions if the required process was not followed.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Election Commission of India, and petitioners challenging the poll panel’s decision-making.
- What
- The Court declined to suspend Kumar for now and sought responses to allegations of unilateral decisions related to electoral-roll revisions.
- When
- Monday; one report identifies the hearing as October 5, 2026, while other reports do not consistently specify the year.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
- Why
- Petitions allege that some Election Commission decisions did not follow the collective decision-making process required for the multi-member poll panel.
Petitioners and critics
Election Commission and court process
How decisions were made
Petitioners and critics
The petitions allege Kumar made decisions without the other commissioners’ knowledge or concurrence and without following the required collective process.
Election Commission and court process
The ECI says reported questions and differing views were part of draft-stage deliberations and do not establish dissent over final decisions.
Electoral-roll revision
Petitioners and critics
Petitioners seek scrutiny of SIR-related decisions, including matters involving Form 6, voter data and electoral-roll changes.
Election Commission and court process
The ECI says decisions on the SIR schedule were unanimous; the Court has not ruled on the allegations and is seeking responses and records.
Suspension of the CEC
Petitioners and critics
Petitioners sought Kumar’s suspension, while opposition figures and protesters have called for his resignation.
Election Commission and court process
The Court declined immediate suspension, saying it would first hear the respondents and examine the record; it said it could revisit decisions if required procedures were not followed.
- Interim relief
- The Court did not suspend Kumar or restrain him from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner at this stage.
- Court action
- The bench issued notices to the Election Commission, the Centre, Kumar and other officials; one report says responses were sought within a week.
- Bench
- The bench was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
- Main issue
- The petitions challenge alleged unilateral decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the Election Commission’s collective decision-making.
- Reported objections
- Reports cited by the petitions say Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months.
- Election Commission’s position
- The ECI says draft-stage queries and differing views are normal parts of deliberations and that SIR schedule decisions were unanimous.
- Possible next step
- The Court said it could reconsider, recall or restrain decisions if the records show the required decision-making process was not followed.
Sources
SC declines interim order on plea for CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension, seeks EC response
SIR row: Supreme Court refuses to pass interim order on suspending CEC Gyanesh Kumar, issues notices to EC, Centre
Did Supreme Court judges use non-judicial forums to influence court decision on SIR and CEC Gyanesh Kumar? The timing raises many questions
Supreme Court refuses ex parte order against CEC, seeks response from Election Commission
SC declines to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks response on poll body decisions
SC Refuses to Pass Interim Order to Suspend Gyanesh Kumar, Seek's ECI's Response
SC Refuses to Pass Interim Order to Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar
SC Notice To EC: SC Refuses To Suspend Gyanesh Kumar, Seeks Poll Panel’s Response | News18
‘If No Unanimity, We’ll Take Decisions Back’: SC Refuses Interim Order To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar
