Archive · 25 Sep 2026
Advocate Seeks Contempt Proceedings Against CEC Over ECI Decisions
An advocate has asked India’s Attorney General to allow a contempt case against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
He says some election decisions were made without the other two Election Commissioners.
The disputed issues include voter-registration forms, changes to voter lists and access to election databases.
The advocate says this may conflict with Supreme Court rulings about how the Election Commission must work.
Those rulings describe the CEC as a first among equals, not an absolute boss.
The Election Commission says members can ask questions and suggest changes while decisions are being prepared.
It says the final decisions were unanimous.
The Attorney General must first decide whether to give consent, and no court has found the CEC guilty of contempt.
Advocate Brajesh Singh asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consent to criminal contempt proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Singh alleges Kumar bypassed Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi in decisions involving voter rolls and election administration.
The allegations cite Supreme Court rulings requiring the Election Commission to function collectively, with the CEC as first among equals.
The Election Commission rejected suggestions of an institutional rift, saying differing views were normal and final decisions were unanimous.
The request followed reports that Sandhu and Joshi recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months.
- Who
- Advocate Brajesh Singh has sought action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar; Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s consent is required to proceed.
- What
- A request has been made to initiate criminal contempt proceedings over alleged violations of Supreme Court rulings governing the Election Commission.
- When
- The request was made on September 24, 2026, following reports published on September 23 about objections within the Election Commission.
- Where
- If consent is granted, the proposed contempt proceedings would be instituted before the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- Singh alleges that decisions were taken without the effective involvement of the other Election Commissioners, contrary to Supreme Court requirements for a collectively functioning, multi-member body.
Singh’s allegations
Election Commission’s response
Internal decision-making
Singh’s allegations
Singh alleges that the CEC bypassed the other Election Commissioners and issued decisions or communications in the name of the Full Commission.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission says differing views and observations are normal during deliberations and maintains that final decisions were unanimous.
Authority of the CEC
Singh’s allegations
Singh argues that Supreme Court rulings require the Commission to operate as a multi-member body, with the CEC acting as first among equals rather than as an absolute authority.
Election Commission’s response
The Commission characterizes the reported disagreements as operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the drafting stage.
Voter-roll administration
Singh’s allegations
Singh says changes to voter data and electoral rolls without the other Commissioners’ involvement could undermine electoral transparency and judicial scrutiny.
Election Commission’s response
The Commission has not accepted that these issues demonstrate a constitutional breach and says they were resolved through unanimous final decisions.
- Petitioner
- Advocate Brajesh Singh
- Respondent
- Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar
- Consent sought from
- Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani
- Legal provisions cited
- Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1975
- Reported objections
- Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly objected on at least 14 occasions over 10 months
- Disputed issues
- Form 6, additions and deletions from electoral rolls, and centralised access to the electoral-roll database
- Current status
- No contempt finding has been made; the Attorney General’s consent is the next step
