The Supreme Court of India is set to convene a pivotal hearing today, October 27, 2026, to address serious allegations of unilateral decision-making within the Election Commission of India. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana will deliberate on petitions that seek to challenge the institutional autonomy and internal governance of the nation's top poll body. The controversy centers on whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar allegedly bypassed the mandatory consensus of his fellow Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, while steering the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls between October 2025 and August 2026.

The litigation, initiated by petitioners Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi, argues that the Election Commission of India functions as a multi-member constitutional body and that its decisions must reflect collective deliberation. The petitioners allege that at least 14 specific decisions were finalized under the name of the Commission despite written objections recorded by the two Election Commissioners. These claims have placed the internal operational protocols of the Commission under intense judicial scrutiny, as the petitioners seek not only a declaration regarding the necessity of concurrence but also the interim suspension of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Questioning the Internal Chain of Command

The heart of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which dictates that the Commission’s decisions should, as far as practicable, be unanimous. The petitioners contend that the Commission has seen a "progressive centralisation" of power, marked by delayed or missing agendas and actions taken without the knowledge of the full panel.

The Commission, in a counter-affidavit filed through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, has sought an immediate dismissal of these pleas. It characterizes the allegations as "misconceived" and fundamentally flawed, noting that they rely entirely on a singular newspaper report. In its defense, the Commission emphasizes that the legal process requires higher standards of verification than media commentary. "A newspaper report is not treated as evidence in the eyes of law," the Commission argued in its filing.

Regarding the internal movement of files, the ECI maintains that the process follows a standard sequence, where files are routed through both Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner for final approval. The Commission clarifies that preliminary notes, queries, or observations recorded by individual Commissioners during the iterative review process are part of the deliberation but do not constitute finalized decisions. As the Commission stated in its response: "Any suggestion, view, or query offered by the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner—to other Commissioners or to any official of the Commission—does not, in itself, constitute an official decision of the Election Commission."

Commission Denies Procedural Irregularities

A significant portion of the petitioners’ grievances relates to the alleged amendment of Form 6—the statutory application used by citizens for enrollment in electoral rolls. Critics argued that new declarations introduced during the Special Intensive Revision exercise acted as a barrier for first-time voters, effectively modifying a statutory form without proper authorization.

The Election Commission of India has vehemently denied that it possessed the authority or intent to unilaterally amend Form 6, asserting that such power resides exclusively with the Central Government under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It explained that the controversial declarations were intended to facilitate the mapping of applicants with historical electoral data but admitted that the presentation on its online portal could have been misconstrued by applicants as a form amendment.

In a move intended to alleviate these concerns, the ECI notified the Supreme Court that it has restructured its online application platform. Effective October 21, 2026, the process has been bifurcated to separate the standard Form 6 from the additional declaration document, mirroring the structure of physical applications. Furthermore, the Commission addressed concerns regarding the ECINet platform, stating that no entries are modified or deleted except by a specific order of the local Electoral Registration Officer. To bolster compliance, it has engaged a committee of technical experts from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bengaluru to audit the platform's functionality.

The Scope of Judicial Intervention

The ongoing proceedings also touch upon the limitations of judicial intervention in the affairs of the Chief Election Commissioner. Relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the Commission argued that the plea seeking to restrain or suspend the Chief Election Commissioner is not maintainable under current law. It reminded the court that the procedure for the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner is distinct and is conducted in the same manner as the removal of a Supreme Court judge.

This hearing follows an initial notice issued by the Supreme Court on October 5, 2026. At that time, the bench declined to grant the interim relief of suspension, noting that the court required authentic documentation rather than speculation to assess the validity of the Commission’s recent actions. Chief Justice Surya Kant previously remarked that if any decisions were found to have been made without following the mandated majority or unanimous consensus, the court possessed the authority to annul them.

The Commission has indicated that the affidavit submitted is a brief response necessitated by the intervening holiday schedule, reserving its right to provide a more detailed, point-by-point rebuttal in future proceedings. As the Supreme Court continues its examination of the official records, the legal community remains focused on the potential precedent this case might set for the internal decision-making standards of India's constitutional authorities. The outcome of today's hearing will determine whether the Court requires further transparency regarding the Commission's minute-books and if it deems the existing internal governance structure sufficient to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. The matter remains pending before the bench, with the Court yet to decide whether an independent inquiry or further disclosure of records is necessary to resolve the claims of administrative overreach.