New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners (ECs) on a plea alleging that major decisions were taken in the poll body’s name without the consent of the full Commission, and sought their responses within a week.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said it must hear the respondents before passing any order and refused to issue interim directions at this stage.
The petition seeks Kumar’s suspension. According to LiveLaw, the bench observed that suspending the CEC would stall the functioning of the ECI. “Who will conduct the elections?” it asked. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, suggested that the other two Commissioners could discharge the functions in the interim.
Singh then urged the court to at least direct that the ECI take decisions only unanimously or by majority. The CJI said there is a mandatory law and the court expects the Commission to follow it. “If there is any violation, we will undo it,” he said.
Singh questioned how far that remedy could go. “Your lordships cannot undo an election, or undo an elected government,” he submitted. He also argued that the electoral roll itself was vitiated because of the allegedly unilateral decisions.
Justice Bagchi asked whether the court could pass an ex parte order, without hearing the respondents, declaring that all decisions were unilateral. If the records show that certain decisions were not unanimous, the court would injunct them and hold them ultra vires, he said. “We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi added.
The petition also seeks a writ of quo warranto asking Kumar to explain under what authority he acted without the concurrence of ECs Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It seeks a declaration that no order, direction or action can be presented as an act of the ECI unless backed by a unanimous decision or, where there is disagreement, by a majority.
The plea relies on the Indian Express report that Sandhu and Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 to steps taken in the name of the ECI without the Commission’s approval. Several of the decisions relate to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The petition also points to appeals filed on behalf of the ECI before court-constituted tribunals in West Bengal, allegedly without the two Commissioners being told who authorised them.
A second petition, filed by an advocate, seeks the quashing of the 14 decisions and an independent investigation.
This post was last modified on October 5, 2026 2:06 pm