Archive · 5 Oct 2026
Supreme Court to Hear Two Pleas Against CEC, SIR
India’s Supreme Court is set to hear two petitions about the chief election commissioner and a nationwide review of voter lists.
One petition says the review was not properly authorized and should be cancelled.
It also argues that important election decisions belong to the Election Commission as a group, not just its chairperson.
A second petition asks for an independent investigation into alleged wrongdoing at the Commission.
It also asks authorities to consider legal action against certain officials.
The petitions point to reports that two election commissioners objected to some decisions and raised concerns about voter software.
The Election Commission says the commissioners’ letters were about an officer on deputation, not policy or IT matters.
The claims are allegations and have not been decided by the court.
The hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 5, 2026.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and the nationwide electoral-roll revision.
Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh argues that election powers belong to the Election Commission collectively, not the CEC individually.
Singh seeks to have the Special Intensive Revision and related actions declared invalid, alleging they lacked legal authority and required procedure.
Delhi lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks an independent judicial inquiry or an SIT led by a retired Supreme Court judge; his plea also requests action against named officials and others found guilty.
The petitions cite reported objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi; the Election Commission says their letters concerned an officer on deputation, not policy or IT matters.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, petitioners Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi, and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- What
- The court is to hear two petitions challenging the CEC’s functioning and the legality of the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- When
- Monday, October 5, 2026; the live coverage reported the hearing was upcoming that morning.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The petitions allege that the SIR lacked legal authority and challenge whether the CEC may exercise powers said to belong to the Election Commission collectively; another petition seeks an independent inquiry.
Petitioners’ claims
Election Commission’s response
Authority for the SIR
Petitioners’ claims
Singh argues that the SIR and actions taken under it lacked constitutional or statutory authority and did not follow legally required procedures; he asks that they be declared invalid.
Election Commission’s response
The articles report no direct Election Commission response to this challenge.
Who holds election powers
Petitioners’ claims
Singh argues Article 324 places election-supervision powers in the Commission as a body, not individually in its chairperson.
Election Commission’s response
The articles report no direct Election Commission response to this constitutional argument.
Commissioners’ letters
Petitioners’ claims
The petitions cite reports that Sandhu and Joshi objected to decisions concerning the SIR and raised concerns about voter software.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission said their letters concerned an officer on deputation and were unrelated to policy or IT division matters.
- Petitions
- Two
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
- First petitioner
- Rakesh Kumar Singh, a resident of Patna
- Second petitioner
- Shailendra Mani Tripathi, a Delhi-based lawyer
- Requested investigation
- An independent judicial inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge
- Reported objections
- Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months
- Election Commission response
- It said the commissioners’ letters to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan concerned an officer on deputation, not policy or IT division matters
- Additional request in Tripathi petition
- Directions to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against named officials and others found guilty
