Back
Issues Notice to Centre, EC Over Alleged Unilateral Decisions by CEC Gyanesh Kumar
The on Monday issued notice to the , the , and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in a that accuses the CEC of making key decisions unilaterally—without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also sought responses from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, as well as ECI officials Seema Khanna and Maneesh Garg, and tagged the matter with a related petition already pending.
The case arises from a series of reports by alleging that between and , the CEC took at least 14 significant decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls despite written objections from the two Election Commissioners. The petitioners argue that such conduct violates the constitutional scheme under , which vests superintendence and control of elections in the Election Commission as a multi-member body, not in any single officeholder.
Court Issues Notice on Allegations of Unilateral Decision-Making
During the hearing, the bench made clear that it would not act merely on newspaper reports but wanted authentic information. “The newspaper report may be 100 per cent correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today,” CJI Surya Kant observed. However, he added a pointed warning: “We have to issue notice. After notice, if they come and the reports show that an Election Commission decision was neither by majority nor by unanimity, they will have to explain those decisions.” The Court further stated that if any decision was found to have been taken without unanimity, it would reconsider or recall those orders.
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh through and drawn by , seeks a writ of —demanding that CEC Gyanesh Kumar show under what authority he has acted individually. A separate petition by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, also heard together, similarly prays for the suspension of the CEC and a declaration that all decisions taken without full Commission concurrence are void .
Arguments Highlight Threat to Democracy
, appearing for the petitioner Singh, argued forcefully that the voting rights of citizens are under systemic threat. “In Delhi, it is 30 per cent of the electorate. In Bengal, it was 25 per cent of the electorate. There are 16 lakh appeals pending before the appellate tribunal. Those persons have already been excluded from one election cycle. Now there is another election cycle,” she submitted. She described the CEC’s functioning as “biased, to say the least,” and insisted that the problem is national in scope, not state-specific.
Guruswamy also highlighted the granted to the CEC under , which protects both sitting and former CECs from civil and criminal proceedings for actions in discharge of official duties. “That illegality is being protected by an unconstitutional law. What is the sanction for this kind of biased conduct? Is this discharge of official duty? I ask myself. We have grown up with in this country. They do not exist today,” she argued.
, appearing for the petitioner in the connected matter, pressed for an of the CEC. He pointed to the “unprecedented” protection under Section 16, noting that even a Prime Minister or a judge does not enjoy such after demitting office. The bench, however, declined to pass an interim order immediately, with CJI Kant stating, “We have to have some authentic information before us. Let us wait for 10 days.”
Legal Framework and the Prayer
At the heart of the dispute lies the interpretation of , which requires that the transaction of business of the Election Commission must be decided unanimously, or failing that, by majority. The petitioners contend that the CEC has effectively bypassed this requirement by taking decisions without even placing them before the full Commission, and by centralising the electoral roll management system under the Director General (IT).
The plea also underscores the constitutional design: Article 324(2) mandates that the Election Commission shall consist of the CEC and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may from time to time fix. The provision has been read by the in previous judgments to require . The petition argues that if the CEC exercises powers that legally belong to the Commission as a whole, then decisions determining who is on the electoral roll—and therefore who may vote—raise a serious constitutional question as to their legality.
The petitioners further allege that the CEC unilaterally altered Form 6, used for adding new voters, making it mandatory for first-time voters to declare their relation with grandparents—a change not approved by the full Commission. They also claim that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have been deprived of their statutory powers under the , and that a rollback feature to restore wrongly deleted voters was intentionally omitted from the software.
Denied but Court Warns of Reconsideration
Though the bench refused to grant —such as suspending the CEC or restoring the pre-2023 selection committee with the Chief Justice of India—it made clear that nothing prevents the Court from annulling decisions later. “If there is anything wrong with the decisions, we can always annul them,” observed the bench.
had argued that the situation was so grave that an interim order was necessary to prevent further damage. “For 76 years, the Election Commission has commanded respect. Individual decisions may have been questioned, but we are now in a situation where the very CEC, as a constitutional authority, is acting in a manner completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed,” he submitted. The Court, however, opted to first obtain responses from all parties within a week.
Broader Implications for Election Law and Democratic Integrity
The case marks a significant test of the institutional balance within the Election Commission. If the ultimately finds that the CEC acted without legal authority, it could lead to the invalidation of numerous electoral roll decisions taken during the SIR process—potentially affecting millions of voters across multiple states.
Legal experts note that the jurisdiction is rarely used against high constitutional functionaries, but the allegations here—if proven—could establish a for judicial scrutiny of internal decision-making in multi-member constitutional bodies. The case also raises questions about the adequacy of the 2023 Act’s protection provisions, which petitioners argue shield the CEC from accountability even for biased conduct.
The Court’s observation that it will “recall orders” taken without unanimity signals a willingness to intervene if the factual record supports the allegations. For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of adherence to statutory procedures governing , and the potential vulnerability of administrative actions taken by single officers without proper authority.
As the matter awaits further hearing, the Election Commission has yet to file a detailed response. The coming weeks will reveal whether the CEC can demonstrate that the contested decisions were indeed taken with the requisite majority or unanimity, or whether the Court will be forced to step in to restore the constitutional balance envisioned by Article 324.
