The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition questioning the manner in which the Election Commission of India has allegedly taken certain decisions under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, particularly the allegation that decisions concerning the Commission were taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. Singh submitted that the statutory framework contemplates collective decision-making by the multi-member Election Commission, with matters being decided unanimously or, where there is a difference of opinion, by majority. The Court directed that the petition be listed next week.
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, invokes Article 324 of the Constitution and questions whether the powers vested in the Election Commission as a constitutional body can be exercised individually by the Chief Election Commissioner. It seeks a writ of quo warranto requiring Gyanesh Kumar to explain the authority under which he allegedly acted as though the collective powers of the Commission were vested in him alone.
At the heart of the plea is the functioning of the present three-member Election Commission, comprising the CEC and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petition relies upon the decision-making framework contained in the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under which the business of the Commission is, as far as possible, to be transacted unanimously. Where the members differ, the matter is to be decided according to the majority view.
The petitioner has referred to reports that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions or steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval or knowledge. The allegations relate, among other matters, to changes in electoral-roll procedures, the handling of electoral data and proceedings connected with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
The plea contends that the constitutional distinction between the Election Commission as an institution and the Chief Election Commissioner as its Chairperson assumes particular significance when decisions affecting electoral rolls and the voting rights of citizens are involved.
According to the petitioner, if powers constitutionally entrusted to a multi-member Commission are exercised by one member without following the prescribed decision-making mechanism, questions would arise regarding the legal validity of such actions. The plea consequently seeks a declaration that any exercise of collective powers without a decision of the Commission in accordance with the statutory procedure would be invalid.
The petition has also sought to challenge the legal basis of the Special Intensive Revision and consequential actions undertaken pursuant to it, contending that such measures should be treated as having no legal authority if they were initiated or implemented without the requisite decision of the full Commission.
The controversy comes amid reports of differences within the Election Commission over several decisions relating to the electoral-roll revision exercise. The allegations remain matters for adjudication, and the Supreme Court’s decision to list the plea next week does not amount to any finding on their merits.
The forthcoming hearing is therefore expected to bring before the Court questions concerning the constitutional structure of the Election Commission, the scope of the CEC’s role as Chairperson and the statutory requirements governing collective decision-making within the poll panel.
The post Supreme Court to hear plea challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s alleged unilateral exercise of ECI powers next week appeared first on India Legal.