The Supreme Court agreed to hear plea seeking doubts over decisions taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar next week.
The matter was brought before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on Tuesday.
Earlier reporting noted: A separate petition before the court’s Kolhapur bench has also raised concerns about the reported objections by two election commissioners to several decisions concerning electoral rolls, including voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, and control of the voter database. Earlier reporting noted: HC to urgently hear plea challenging Maharashtra SIR MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday agreed to urgently hear a petition challenging the implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Maharashtra, days after reports about an internal rift within the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI) over how the exercise is being conducted. The apex court agreed for early hearing of a plea challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India, which alleges that powers vested in the multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without adhering to the collective decision-making process prescribed by law. Under the provision, matters on which the Election Commissioners do not reach a unanimous decision are to be settled by majority. The petition refers to written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It has also sought declaratory and mandatory directions to ensure that the prescribed collective decision-making process is followed. In addition, the plea seeks the production and preservation of relevant records linked to the decisions under challenge. The controversy erupted after a media report, claimed of differences within the poll panel over aspects of the SIR exercise and electoral-roll procedures. The poll panel has also maintained that its decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, were unanimous, and that differences expressed by individual Commissioners are part of the normal deliberative and administrative process. However, the Kolhapur bench denied an urgent hearing.
It also cites Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which lays down a framework for collective decision-making. The two Commissioners raised at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and actions allegedly taken in the name of the Election Commission without their approval, according to the plea. The objections mentioned in the petition cover several issues, including communications and orders allegedly issued without the Commission’s approval, the lack of agendas before meetings and minutes afterwards, foreign travel allegedly undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and the filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal. The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers conferred on the Election Commission under Article 324 cannot be exercised or presented as decisions of the Commission unless they comply with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the multi-member body. Earlier reporting noted: The petitions were filed days after The Indian Express reported that two of the three election commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—formally objected on record at least 14 times over 10 months to unilateral decisions made without their knowledge under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who raised the issue before the bench, said that under the statutory framework, decisions taken by the multi-member Election Commission must be unanimous or decided by a majority. The plea argues that Article 324 of the Constitution places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the “Commission” as a collective body, rather than with the Chief Election Commissioner acting alone. The plea also cites concerns allegedly expressed by the two Election Commissioners over what it describes as the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”, as well as changes in the allocation of work within the poll panel’s IT establishment. The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that the reported differences between the Commissioners do not constitute an institutional “rupture”. It has said that internal objections and written notes are part of the established functioning of a multi-member constitutional body.
Opposition demands CEC’s removal
The Congress Working Committee (CWC) called for a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the party’s strategy on the Election Commission row. Congress leaders, including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, along with chief ministers of Congress-ruled states and other senior leaders, are attending the CWC meeting. (with agencies input) Meanwhile the opposition has intesified thier concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, changes related to Form 6 for enrolling new voters, additions and deletions from voter lists, and centralised control over the electoral-roll database.
