The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre on PILs alleging the poll panel led by CEC Gyanesh Kumar took 14 decisions between October 2025 and August 2026 allegedly without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also asked Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi, EC Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg to file their replies to the PILs.
PIL petitioners Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi have challenged the decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Chief Election Commissioner Kumar without the concurrence of Sandhu and Joshi.
However, despite repeated requests from senior counsel Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh to pass an interim order restraining Kumar from functioning as the CEC, the Bench refused to pass any such order at this juncture without hearing out the Election Commission only on the basis of news reports.
“News reports may be fully or partially correct. We would like to have their (EC’s) response… We will seek response of respondents 5-8 (Sandhu, Joshi and two other poll panel officials) also. They will respond to us. There’s a law. They are expected to follow. If we find that law was not followed, you know what can happen…,” the Bench told Vikas Singh who insisted on an interim order to restrain Kumar.
“Let’s first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision,” it said, even as Vikas Singh contended that the top court will never annul an election that has already happened.
“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires. Can we ex-parte come to a decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” the Bench noted.
Vikas Singh submitted that the credibility of EC has been undermined to such an extent that every citizen was feeling unsafe. He urged the Bench to declare that decisions vested in the Election Commission cannot be taken unilaterally by the CEC.
“Then who will conduct elections?” the Bench asked.
Describing elections as the “very basis of our democracy,” Vikas Singh said the elections have been conducted for 76 years with EC having certain respect.
“But today, the very CEC as a constitutional body is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed. This country will burn!” the senior counsel said.
He urged the Bench to at least say that till next date, the EC will only take unanimous decisions. However, the top court refused to pass any orders without hearing from the Election Commission.
As Vikas Singh also raised the issue of extra-ordinary protection having been extended to the CEC and ECs under the new law, the Bench pointed out, “This protection is perhaps only for the President. It does not apply even to judges.”
The top court also issued notice to the EC on another PIL filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations of statutory duties during the SIR exercise.
Tripathi demanded a judicial inquiry or a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the alleged deletion of 13 crore voters from electoral rolls during the SIR. He urged the top court to declare that decisions, guidelines and software modifications undertaken by Kumar allegedly without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners unconstitutional and void.
The petitioners wanted the court to issue a direction to Kumar to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act as though he was individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission.
The PIL demanded the CEC’s suspension pending adjudication, production of the poll panel’s original records and constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
Singh cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
According to Section 18 (1), “The Election Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for transaction of its business and also allocation of its business amongst the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.”
Section 18 (2) states that, “All business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and if the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.”
