Archive · 29 Sep 2026
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to CEC’s ECI Functioning
The Supreme Court will soon consider a petition about how India’s Election Commission is making decisions.
The petition says Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar may have acted for the whole Commission without getting approval from the other commissioners.
It asks the Court to suspend him while the case is being decided.
It also challenges the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of voter lists.
The petition says the Commission should make decisions together, either unanimously or by majority vote.
It refers to at least 14 objections raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The objections involved voter-registration forms, computer databases, meetings, information technology work and legal appeals.
The Election Commission says disagreements and written notes are a normal part of discussing important decisions.
It says its decisions, including the SIR exercise, were properly authorised and unanimous.
The Supreme Court agreed to list next week a petition challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s exercise of Election Commission powers.
The petition seeks Kumar’s suspension and argues that the multi-member Election Commission must act unanimously or by majority.
It questions the legality of the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and related decisions allegedly taken without two commissioners’ approval.
The plea cites at least 14 objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
The Election Commission says differing views and written objections are normal deliberations, while maintaining that its orders, including those on SIR, were legally sanctioned and unanimous.
- Who
- The Supreme Court of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Election Commission of India, and petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh.
- What
- The Court agreed to hear a petition challenging Kumar’s functioning, seeking his suspension, and questioning the legality of decisions involving the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.
- When
- The matter was mentioned on Tuesday, September 29, and the Court directed that it be listed the following week; the petition cites objections from October 2025 to August 2026.
- Where
- Before the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- The petition argues that Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 election law require the Election Commission to exercise its powers collectively, by unanimity or majority.
Petitioners’ Position
Election Commission’s Position
Individual versus collective authority
Petitioners’ Position
The petition argues that Article 324 powers belong to the Election Commission as a multi-member body and cannot be exercised or represented by the CEC alone without a unanimous or majority decision.
Election Commission’s Position
The Election Commission says it follows established statutory procedures and that differing views and written notes are normal within a multi-member constitutional institution.
Validity of the SIR exercise
Petitioners’ Position
The petition questions whether the nationwide Special Intensive Revision was approved by the Commission and asks the Court to examine related decisions and records.
Election Commission’s Position
The Election Commission maintains that its decisions, including those related to the SIR exercise, were unanimous, legally sanctioned and procedurally valid.
Significance of commissioners’ objections
Petitioners’ Position
The petition cites at least 14 objections about communications, meetings, Form 6, electoral-roll databases, IT work allocation and West Bengal tribunal appeals, and asks the Court to inspect primary records.
Election Commission’s Position
The Election Commission says the reported differences do not amount to an institutional rupture; it also stated that letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation rather than policy or IT matters.
- Next hearing step
- The Supreme Court said the petition would be listed for hearing next week.
- Chief Election Commissioner
- Gyanesh Kumar
- Petitioner
- Rakesh Kumar Singh, a resident of Patna
- Main requests
- Suspension of Gyanesh Kumar pending the case, safeguards for collective functioning, and examination of disputed decisions and records.
- Constitutional provision
- Article 324(1) places election superintendence, direction and control in the Election Commission.
- Statutory provision
- Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, provides for collective decisions and majority decisions where members disagree.
- Reported objections
- At least 14 objections were attributed to Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, concerning issues including SIR, Form 6, databases, IT work and West Bengal appeals.
- ECI position
- The Election Commission says internal objections are part of normal deliberation and that its decisions, including those on SIR, were legally sanctioned and unanimous.
