Supreme Court Seeks ECI and CEC Responses Over Alleged Unilateral Decision-Making by Gyanesh Kumar
The replies of EC Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have also been sought. Replies have also been sought of ECI DG(IT) Seema Khanna and SDCEC Maneesh Garg.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought replies from the Central government, Election Commision of India (ECI) and others in a petition which alleged that decisions were taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (CEC) without approval from the two other Election Commissioners.
The replies of Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi, as well as ECI DG(IT) Seema Khanna and SDCEC Maneesh Garg have also been sought. "Read more at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/eci-cec-supreme-court-power-centralisation
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said,
"We have to issue notice. After notice, if they come and the reports show that an EC decision was neither by majority nor by unanimity, they will have to explain those decisions."
The plea had sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto "commanding respondent no.1 (CEC) to explain under what authority he has acted and continues to act as though entitled individually to exercise the decision making power collectively vested in the Election Commission."
The writ petition had also sought similar explanations from the CEC as to why he should not be deemed to have violated his duty as a public servant and have acted "mala fide" and without jurisdiction.
The plea said the ECI consists of the CEC and two ECs. When there is no unanimity among the three, decisions have to be made on the basis of a majority.
However, it pointed out to recent reports in the Indian Express which say that the ECI took various decisions despite the dissent of the two ECs.
The petition filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh alleged the "progressive centralisation" of power of the two ECs by CEC Kumar, non availability/ delay in providing agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll process and filing of appeals without the knowledge/approval of the two Election Commissioners.
The plea highlighted certain objections raised by the two Election Commissioners against the decisions taken in the name of the ECI without their consent or presence.
It highlighted "14 specific instances of objections recorded by the two ECs between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026," it said.
"If power constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi member body can, in fact or in substance, be exercised by one office within it without the concurrence the Constitution and the 20 23 Act require… decisions that determine who is on the electoral roll and therefore who may vote, raise a serious constitutional question as to whether such decisions are being taken by the constitutional authority the Constitution created for that purpose," the plea added.
"If found that respondent no.1 exercises, or continues to exercise such power on behalf of the Election Commission without such decision of the Commission being taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 20 23 Act, then such exercise of power by him ought to be declared null an void", the plea sought.
The plea sought a declaration that Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and all actions taken, decisions made, directions issued and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to SIR based on orders from respondent no.1 be declared void ab initio and taken without lawful authority.
The plea was drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through Advocate Mudit Gupta.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for the petitioner today, also highlighted Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 20 23 which gave immunity to the CEC even after his retirement.
Singh said,
"This was not there in the earlier Act. Section 16 makes it even more important because of the kind of authority that the statute has given to the Chief Election Commissioner."
CJI Kant replied,
"Protection while in office is always understood."
Singh however countered,
"But it says "is or was". So even after he demits office. This kind of protection is unheard of for any other constitutional functionary. The Prime Minister does not have this protection."
"Not even judges," Justice Bagchi added.
Singh agreed and clarified that he was not attacking Section 16 at this stage.
Instead, he sought an interim order suspending the CEC from office immediately or divesting him from the authority to act as the CEC and allow the other two ECs to act in his place till the matters are resolved.
"In the interim, restore the position of Anoop Baranwal and let the Chief Justice of India be a member of the selection committee. We are dealing with a very serious situation which can go on to undermine the very basis of our democracy. Our democracy is known far and wide across the world for the manner in which elections are conducted in India. For 76 years, we have had an Election Commission that has commanded respect across the political spectrum. Individual decisions of the EC have been questioned, whether rightly or wrongly but now we are coming to a point where the conduct of the CEC, as a constitutional authority, is completely contrary to the statute which he is appointed under. Some interim order is going to be required otherwise this game will continue," Singh said.
The CJI responded,
"We have to have some authentic information before us. Let us wait for 10 days."
On annulment of decisions taken by the ECI that are under challenge in the Court,
The Court said,
"If there is anything wrong with the decision, we can always annul them. The 1993 amendment as well as the 20 23 Act talk about both things. Transaction of business shall be decided by them unanimously. Functioning can be done by majority. They are expected to first try taking a decision unanimously. If there is no unanimity, then as rightly pointed out it can be decided by a majority."
Singh then submitted that the ECI has chosen to not answer the report in Indian Express, but issued a press release speaking "in the vaguest possible language".
CJI Kant then said,
"The newspaper report could be 100 per cent correct, it could be partially correct, it could be partially incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today. But we would definitely like to have their response. After that, if we want any procedural requirements, we will issue."
