The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as the Chief Election Commissioner.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to take up the petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh after senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter for urgent listing. The Bench also comprises Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
While seeking an early hearing, Vikas Singh argued that the Election Commission is a multi-member body and that, under the statutory framework, its business is required to be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with differences being resolved through a majority decision.
“If the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, it's a serious issue,” Singh told the Bench.
He also raised questions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. According to the submissions, objections were allegedly recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, raising a question over whether the decision could be treated as a decision of the Election Commission.
The PIL cites reports that around 14 decisions were taken in the name of the Election Commission between October 2025 and August 2026 despite objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to declare that decisions vested in the Election Commission cannot be taken unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner.
The plea also seeks a direction requiring Gyanesh Kumar to explain the authority under which he allegedly acted, and continues to act, as though he was individually empowered to exercise the collective decision-making authority vested under Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission.
The petition has further sought suspension of the CEC pending adjudication, production of the Election Commission’s original records and the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The petitioner’s counsel also referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Section 18(1) provides that the Election Commission may, through a unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for conducting its business and allocate work among the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
Section 18(2) provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. Where the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ on a matter, it is to be decided according to the opinion of the majority.
The PIL has also sought directions preventing any further substantive alteration to Form-6 and ensuring that an otherwise eligible citizen is not denied or prevented from seeking inclusion in the electoral roll solely for failing to provide information contained in the disputed field, pending the Supreme Court’s decision on its legality.
Another prayer in the petition seeks protection of the integrity of electoral-roll data, Form-6, ERONet/ECINet and other records connected with the proceedings.
The petitioner has asked the court to direct the respondents to preserve the existing electoral-roll data, records and digital systems in their original and unaltered form. The plea also seeks that no deletion, exclusion, restoration, modification or other irreversible action affecting electoral-roll data be carried out solely on the basis of the SIR pending further orders of the Supreme Court.
This is the second petition before the Supreme Court against CEC Gyanesh Kumar amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the SIR of electoral rolls.
Last week, another PIL was filed seeking criminal prosecution of Kumar over alleged violations of statutory duties during the SIR exercise. The petitioner, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, sought a judicial inquiry or an SIT investigation into the alleged deletion of 13 crore voters from electoral rolls during the revision exercise.
Tripathi also sought a declaration that decisions, guidelines and software modifications allegedly undertaken by Kumar without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners were unconstitutional and void.