Supreme Court to Hear Next Week Plea Asking for CEC Gyanesh Kumar to Step Aside
New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it will take up next week a petition that wants Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar stopped from doing his job until the case is fully heard. Senior advocate Vikas Singh stood up before Chief Justice Surya Kant and asked for an early date. He was appearing for the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh. Singh told the court that the Election Commission is supposed to work as a team of three. Decisions should be taken together, either by everyone agreeing or by majority if they don’t. He said the way things have been going, there is real doubt whether that is actually happening. The Chief Justice simply said the matter would be listed next week. The petition asks the court to order that Gyanesh Kumar should not act as Chief Election Commissioner while the case is pending. In the meantime, it wants the other two Election Commissioners — Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi — to run the Commission by mutual agreement. If a vacancy comes up, the petition says any new appointment should go through a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India. What triggered all this are reports that roughly 14 decisions were taken in the name of the Election Commission between October last year and August this year, even though Sandhu and Joshi had put their objections on record. The petition talks about written notes and formal communications from the two Commissioners. Those objections cover things like letters and orders that went out without their say-so, meetings that had no proper agenda or minutes, changes made to Form 6 (the form people fill to get on the voter list), control over the big voter databases, shifts in how IT work was assigned, and appeals filed in the Commission’s name before tribunals in West Bengal. The basic argument is simple. The Constitution gives the power to run elections to the Election Commission as a whole, not to one person. The 2023 law that covers the appointment and service of the Commissioners also says decisions should be collective. Where there is disagreement, majority wins. The petition wants the court to ask Kumar to explain under what authority he has been acting as if he alone can exercise those powers. Apart from the temporary stay, the petition asks for the Commission’s original files to be produced. It also wants an independent inquiry — either a judicial commission or a special investigation team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge — to look into how those 14 decisions were taken. This is the second case in the Supreme Court that questions how the Commission has been working under Kumar. An earlier one had asked for criminal action linked to the big Special Intensive Revision of voter lists. That revision has already removed a huge number of names across the country and has been the subject of a lot of political heat. The Election Commission has said that differences among the three members are normal and that the final decisions, including those on the voter-list revision, were taken by everyone together. After the reports came out, the three Commissioners met, issued a joint statement, and even released a photograph of themselves standing together. Still, the petition insists the written objections raise serious questions about whether some of the steps taken in the Commission’s name really had the backing of the full body. It says the whole point of having three Commissioners is to stop one person from running the show alone. When the court hears the matter next week, it will first look at the request to keep Kumar from functioning as CEC for now. It will also have to consider the larger point about how the Commission is supposed to take decisions. The petitioner has asked that all the relevant records be kept safe so nothing disappears while the case goes on. For the moment, the Supreme Court’s decision to list the petition next week means these questions will come up in open court soon. Given how central the Election Commission is to free and fair elections, a lot of people will be watching what happens. Sources: The Tribune, LiveLaw, Deccan Chronicle, The Indian Express, NewsX, WION, Economic Times, Outlook India. @Rohit Manral
Plea in Supreme Court Seeks Suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Says Election Commission Decisions Must Be Collective
A petition is asking the top court to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar right away and make it clear that the Election Commission of India cannot run on one man’s word alone. The plea, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, comes against the backdrop of reports that around 14 decisions were taken in the name of the three-member Election Commission between October 2025 and August 2026 even though the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had put their objections down in writing. According to the petition, those objections kept coming up over months, sometimes more than once on the same day, and yet steps were still carried out as if the full Commission had signed off. What the petitioner is basically saying is this: Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in “a Commission,” not in one individual. Yes, the Chief Election Commissioner is the Chairman under Article 324(3), but that does not turn him into the Commission itself. The plea asks for a writ of quo warranto — basically forcing Kumar to explain under what authority he has been acting as if the collective power belongs to him alone. It also wants him suspended while the court looks into the matter, the original institutional records of the Commission produced, and an independent judicial inquiry commission or special investigation team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge set up to examine how those 14 decisions were taken. This is not the only petition on the subject. A few days earlier, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi had already approached the Supreme Court after The Indian Express reported the written objections by Sandhu and Joshi. That petition focuses more on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. It seeks a declaration that any decisions, guidelines, directives or software changes made without the full Commission’s concurrence, or against the majority view, are unconstitutional and void from the start. It also asks for criminal proceedings under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act and for an SIT to look into the alleged deletion of a large number of names from the rolls. Both petitions point to the same legal provision: Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. That section says that when there is a difference of opinion among the members, the majority view prevails. The argument is simple — if two out of three are objecting on record, how can decisions still go out in the name of the entire Commission? The issues raised go beyond procedure. The earlier petition talks about changes to statutory Form 6 used for voter registration, the centralisation of powers that used to rest with local Electoral Registration Officers, software modifications that allegedly introduced new requirements without proper rule amendments, and specific problems reported in states like West Bengal. The newer plea by Rakesh Kumar Singh keeps the focus tighter on the institutional question: can the Chairman alone exercise powers that the Constitution gives to the Commission as a body? People who follow these things will remember that the Supreme Court has already dealt with the relative positions of the CEC and the other Commissioners. In the T.N. Seshan case years ago, the court made it clear that once Election Commissioners are appointed, the body becomes multi-member and the CEC does not enjoy a veto. The 2023 Act simply put the majority principle into statute. The current petitions are testing whether that principle was actually followed in practice over the past year. The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were taken properly. But the existence of written objections by two Commissioners is now a matter of public record through media reports, and the petitioners are asking the court to look at the original files, notings, approvals and server logs to settle the question. For ordinary voters, the stakes are straightforward. The electoral rolls decide who gets to vote. If the process of revising those rolls or changing the software that manages them is happening without the full Commission on board, questions of fairness and institutional integrity naturally arise. That is why the petitions are asking not only for declarations about past decisions but also for a proper inquiry so that the same pattern, if it exists, does not continue. The Supreme Court has not yet listed or issued notice on the latest petition seeking suspension. Courts usually move carefully on matters involving constitutional bodies. Still, the filing itself puts the issue of collective versus unilateral decision-making squarely on the judicial table. At the end of the day, the Election Commission is meant to be an independent multi-member body that inspires confidence across the political spectrum. When two of its three members are recording repeated objections and decisions are still going out under the Commission’s name, it is only natural that someone will ask the highest court to examine whether the constitutional and statutory scheme is being followed. That is exactly what these petitions are doing. Whether the court grants interim suspension, orders production of records, or sets up an independent inquiry remains to be seen. What is clear is that the demand for transparency and collective functioning of the Election Commission has now reached the Supreme Court in formal petitions. Sources:LiveLaw (28 September 2026)The Indian Express (25 September 2026)Business Standard (25 September 2026)India Today (26 September 2026)WION (28 September 2026)The Tribune (28 September 2026) @Rohit Manral