Politics · India · 2 hrs ago
Election Commission defends its decision-making process in Supreme Court
The Election Commission of India says its decisions were unanimous in a response filed in the Supreme Court.
The dispute concerns three orders on a special revision of voter lists, issued between June 2025 and May 2026.
Opposition petitioners led by Rahul Gandhi say the chief acted alone, rather than the commission deciding collectively.
Section 18 of the 2023 law says the commission should decide unanimously as far as possible, but a majority can decide when commissioners disagree.
The law gives the chief election commissioner no veto or casting vote, and the Supreme Court has previously said the chief is not superior to the other commissioners.
The petitioners want decisions backed by a collective vote, while the commission says questions or objections raised during discussions are not themselves decisions.
The Supreme Court will consider whether the commission followed the law in the pending petition.
The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that its decisions on special intensive revision were made unanimously.
Petitioners, led by Rahul Gandhi, allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar made decisions unilaterally and seek a declaration on the commission’s decision-making rules.
The commission’s counter-affidavit says that individual objections or suggestions during deliberations are not decisions and that final decisions are made collectively.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the petitions on October 27, 2026.
Reports cited by the articles say two commissioners recorded at least 14 objections, though the articles give different starting months for the period covered.
- Who
- The Election Commission of India and petitioners including Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders.
- What
- The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the commission’s decision-making process and alleged unilateral decisions.
- When
- The hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2026.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- Petitioners say the commission’s collective powers were exercised unilaterally; the commission says its final decisions were unanimous.
Election Commission of India
Petitioners
Legal requirements
Election Commission of India
The commission says it complied with the law governing its decision-making.
Petitioners
Petitioners say commission acts must be backed by a unanimous or majority decision and cannot be represented as commission decisions otherwise.
The commission issued one of its three orders on special intensive revision.
The commission issued a second order on special intensive revision.
The commission issued its third order on special intensive revision.
The commission filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending its decision-making process.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the petitions.
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
- Law cited by ECI
- Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023
- SIR orders
- June 24, 2025; October 27, 2025; May 14, 2026
- Reported objections
- At least 14; articles differ on whether the period began in October or November 2025
- Interim relief sought
- Suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar
3 sources
What people are saying
internal checks-and-balances