Supreme Court to hear plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar next week

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a plea, questioning the manner in which chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has exercised powers vested in the Election Commission of India as a multi-member body.

The plea, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, alleges that decisions were taken in the name of ECI without the approval of the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The matter was mentioned before a three-member bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, sought urgent listing of the plea.


Also Read: Kunal Kamra moves SC on issue concerning legislative privileges

"The purpose of having a multi-member commission was that, and the statute says so, that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority," Singh submitted.

He questioned whether the decisions relating to the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls could be treated as decisions of ECI if they had not been taken collectively. "Because if the commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then this...," Singh said, before the court directed that the matter be listed next week.

The petition seeks a writ of quo warranto calling upon Kumar to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised, and continues to exercise, powers constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a whole.

Also Read: ‘Major food crisis’ looms in coming months: S Jaishankar

Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in ECI. The commission comprises the CEC and two election commissioners.

The plea relies on section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the business of the commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where CEC and election commissioners differ, the matter is to be decided according to the majority view.

The petitioner alleges that between October 2025 and August 2026, the two ECs raised at least 14 objections to steps taken in the name of ECI without their approval. The plea further alleges delays or an absence in circulation of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and filing of appeals without the knowledge or approval of the other ECs.

It seeks a declaration that if CEC exercised powers collectively vested in the commission without a decision taken in accordance with section 18, then that use of authority is invalid.