New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre on allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, and indicated that such decisions could be set aside if they are found to have been taken in violation of the law.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the ECI, the Union government, Gyanesh Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The bench, however, declined to pass an interim order restraining or suspending the CEC at this stage.
The petitions before the court allege that several decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken in the name of the Election Commission without the approval or concurrence of the other two commissioners. The petitioners have sought scrutiny of the relevant records to determine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with the statutory framework governing the functioning of the poll panel.
During the hearing, the bench said it would first examine the responses and records before reaching any conclusion. The court indicated that if the material shows that decisions were taken without the required unanimity or majority, it could intervene and set aside or restrain the implementation of such decisions. Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned whether the court could assume, without examining the records, that all the decisions in question were unilateral.
The bench also made it clear that it could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports. The court therefore sought a response from the Election Commission and other concerned parties before considering the allegations and the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
The petitions were filed against the backdrop of reports that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections to a number of decisions concerning the SIR exercise. A report by The Indian Express had earlier said that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions between October 2025 and August 2026 over various decisions and measures related to the revision of electoral rolls. The allegations include changes to voter-registration procedures and other administrative and technical measures connected with the electoral database.
One of the issues raised before the court concerns changes to Form 6, which is used for enrolment of new voters. The Supreme Court also clarified during Monday's proceedings that it had not approved the modification to Form 6, contrary to an earlier claim attributed to the Election Commission regarding the court's position on the form.
The matter will now proceed after the respondents file their responses, following which the Supreme Court is expected to examine whether the decisions under challenge complied with the statutory requirements governing the Election Commission.