Supreme Court Refuses Ex-Parte Plea to Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Issues Notice on Challenge to ECI Decisions

Yugcharan News / 06-10-2026

The Supreme Court has declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, observing that the Election Commission of India and other respondents should first be given an opportunity to respond to allegations concerning decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sindhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna.

The petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh after a report by The Indian Express alleged that 14 important decisions connected with the Special Intensive Revision were taken in the name of the Election Commission by the Chief Election Commissioner despite objections recorded by two Election Commissioners.

Petitioner Seeks Immediate Interim Relief

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate interim measures, including suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner.

The petitioner has also challenged aspects of the appointment process under the law governing the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, an issue that is already pending consideration before a larger bench.

During Monday's hearing, Singh argued that interim measures were necessary because, according to the petitioner, concerns surrounding the functioning of the Election Commission could affect citizens' confidence in their voting rights.

Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that decisions of the Election Commission should, as far as possible, be unanimous and that where unanimity is not possible, decisions should be taken by majority.

He also referred to Section 16 of the legislation, which provides legal protection to the Chief Election Commissioner for acts performed in the discharge of official duties.

Supreme Court Questions Consequences of Suspending CEC

The bench questioned the practical consequences of suspending the Chief Election Commissioner while the allegations remain under consideration.

The judges pointed out that suspending the CEC could affect the functioning of the Election Commission and asked who would conduct elections if the head of the poll panel were suspended.

Singh responded that the remaining two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions of the Commission.

The bench, however, maintained that it would first have to hear the respondents before passing an order against them.

Singh subsequently suggested that the Court could direct the Election Commission to take decisions only through a unanimous or majority process in accordance with the statutory framework.

The Chief Justice observed that there was already a mandatory legal framework governing the functioning of the Commission and said that the Court expected the law to be followed. He indicated that if a violation were established, the Court could take appropriate corrective action.

Court Declines to Pass Order Without Hearing Respondents

The bench also questioned whether it could make a finding on the alleged unilateral decision-making without first examining the records and hearing the concerned parties.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the Court could issue an ex-parte order on the assumption that all the decisions in question were unilateral.

The Court indicated that if the records ultimately established that particular decisions were not taken in accordance with the statutory requirements, it could examine their legality and consider whether they were beyond the authority granted by law.

The observations came while the Court was considering the petitioner's request for urgent interim relief against the Chief Election Commissioner.

The bench ultimately chose to seek responses from the Union government, the Election Commission and the other named respondents rather than immediately suspend the CEC.

Dispute Linked to Special Intensive Revision

The petition is connected with allegations surrounding decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The petitioner relied on a report published by The Indian Express, which had alleged that 14 key decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the Election Commission by the CEC despite objections recorded by two Election Commissioners.

The allegations raise questions about the manner in which decisions are required to be taken within the Election Commission under the statutory framework.

However, the allegations remain subject to judicial examination, and the Supreme Court has not made any finding that the CEC or the Election Commission violated the law.

The Court's decision to issue notice means that the respondents will now have an opportunity to place their position and relevant records before the Court.

Petitioner Raises Concern Over Electoral Rolls

During the hearing, Singh argued that the alleged unilateral decisions could have consequences for the electoral rolls themselves.

He contended that if decisions relating to the revision process were found to have been taken contrary to the statutory framework, the validity of the resulting electoral process could be affected.

The bench, however, focused on the need to establish whether there had actually been a violation before granting the requested relief.

The Court's observations suggest that it will examine the underlying records and the statutory requirements before deciding whether any of the disputed decisions can be interfered with.

Legal Protection for Election Commissioners Also Raised

The petitioner also drew the Court's attention to the legal immunity available to the Chief Election Commissioner under Section 16 of the relevant legislation.

Singh argued that the statutory protection provided to the CEC was significant and compared it with the legal position applicable to judges of the Supreme Court.

The issue was raised in the context of the petitioner's broader challenge concerning the functioning and accountability of the Election Commission.

At this stage, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the validity of the statutory protections or on the allegations made against the CEC.

What Happens Next

With notices issued to the respondents, the case will now proceed after the concerned authorities and officials file their responses.

The Supreme Court will have to examine the allegations concerning the SIR-related decisions, the statutory provisions governing decision-making within the Election Commission and the petitioner's broader challenge to the appointment process.

The Court's refusal to grant an immediate ex-parte suspension does not amount to a final determination on the allegations. Any further relief will depend on the material placed before the bench and the Court's assessment of whether the statutory framework was breached.

For now, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar continues in office, while the Supreme Court has sought responses from the Election Commission, the Union government and the other respondents named in the petition.