ECI Row: Supreme Court to Hear Plea Challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Alleged Unilateral Decisions, SIR Exercise

Yugcharan News / 29-09-2026

The Supreme Court is set to hear next week a petition challenging the manner in which certain decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) were allegedly taken, including decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. The plea also seeks a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 of the Constitution must be exercised collectively by the multi-member Commission and not individually by the Chief Election Commissioner.

The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who sought an early listing of the petition. The Chief Justice agreed to list the matter next week.

The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Rakesh Kumar Singh. It raises questions concerning the decision-making process within the Election Commission and refers to alleged objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi against various decisions attributed to the ECI.

Plea Questions Unilateral Exercise of ECI Powers

The central issue raised by the petitioner is whether the Chief Election Commissioner can independently exercise powers that, under the constitutional framework, are vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member body.

The petition contends that Article 324 establishes the Election Commission as the constitutional authority responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of elections. According to the petitioner, the powers of the Commission therefore cannot be exercised individually by its Chairman unless the decision-making requirements applicable to the multi-member body have been followed.

During Monday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that the ECI is a multi-member institution and that its statutory framework provides for collective decision-making. He submitted that the Commission's business is required to be conducted unanimously as far as possible, with differences between its members being resolved through a majority decision.

Singh specifically referred to the SIR exercise and questioned whether the decision to undertake it could be treated as a decision of the Commission if objections had been raised by other Election Commissioners.

He told the Supreme Court that the issue warranted consideration because of the alleged absence of unanimity and the objections attributed to the other members of the Commission. However, he primarily sought an early hearing of the petition rather than detailed adjudication of the issue during the mentioning.

Petition Refers to Objections by Two Election Commissioners

According to the petition, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and steps that they allegedly believed had been taken without the approval of the Commission.

The petition relies on these alleged objections to contend that there is a substantive question about whether certain actions represented as decisions of the ECI were actually authorised through the collective decision-making process.

The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to examine whether communications, orders, directions, appeals or other actions can be issued in the name of the Election Commission without a decision supported either by unanimity or, where differences exist, by a majority of the members.

The allegations contained in the petition remain matters for judicial consideration, and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on their merits.

Section 18 of 2023 Law Cited

A significant part of the petition relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The provision deals with the manner in which the Commission regulates its procedure and allocates its business. It provides for unanimous decision-making as far as possible, while differences between the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are to be decided by majority.

The petitioner has argued that this statutory framework reinforces the requirement of collective functioning within the Commission.

On that basis, the plea seeks a declaration that actions cannot be represented as decisions of the ECI unless they are backed by the decision-making process prescribed by law.

The case could therefore require the Supreme Court to examine the relationship between the constitutional powers under Article 324 and the statutory framework governing the functioning of the three-member Election Commission.

SIR Exercise at Centre of Dispute

The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls is among the matters specifically referred to in the petition.

The petitioner has questioned whether the decision to undertake the exercise was properly taken by the Commission in light of the alleged objections raised by the other Election Commissioners.

The SIR process involves scrutiny and revision of electoral rolls and has generated legal and political attention. In the present case, however, the Supreme Court will be required to consider the institutional question of how such a decision is authorised within the ECI, rather than simply the merits of the revision exercise itself.

The petitioner's argument is that a decision of such significance must reflect the decision of the Commission as a whole and cannot be treated as an individual decision of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Plea Seeks Writ Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Apart from seeking clarification on the collective functioning of the ECI, the petition also seeks a writ of quo warranto concerning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The petitioner has asked the court to require Kumar to explain the authority under which he allegedly acted as though he were individually entitled to exercise powers that, according to the plea, are vested collectively in the Election Commission under Article 324.

A writ of quo warranto is a judicial remedy through which the authority of a person to hold a public office can be questioned. The petition's use of this remedy is linked to its broader contention that the CEC cannot independently exercise powers belonging to the multi-member Commission.

The plea also seeks a declaration that the constitutional powers of the ECI must be exercised in accordance with the collective decision-making mechanism prescribed by law.

Supreme Court to Examine Institutional Question

The Supreme Court's decision to list the matter next week means that the issues raised by the petition are now scheduled for judicial consideration. At this stage, the court has only agreed to an early listing and has not made any finding that the allegations against the Election Commission or the Chief Election Commissioner are established.

The upcoming hearing is expected to bring into focus the statutory provisions governing the functioning of the Election Commission and the extent to which decisions taken in the name of the ECI must reflect a unanimous or majority decision of its members.

The proceedings may also clarify how Section 18 of the 2023 Act operates alongside Article 324 of the Constitution, particularly when members of the Commission disagree over an administrative or electoral decision.

The petition has been filed against the backdrop of alleged differences within the Election Commission over several decisions taken between October 2025 and August 2026. The Supreme Court will now consider the legal questions raised by the petitioner, including whether the powers of the constitutional body can be exercised individually by the Chief Election Commissioner or must necessarily follow the collective decision-making process prescribed under the applicable legal framework.