Back
to Hear Next Week Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Unilateral ECI Decisions
The on Tuesday agreed to list for hearing next week a significant petition that challenges the authority of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar to take decisions unilaterally on behalf of the (ECI). The plea, filed under , raises fundamental questions about the collective decision-making process within the three-member poll panel and alleges that key actions—including the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls—were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, by Senior Advocate . Singh argued that the statutory scheme governing the ECI requires that business be transacted unanimously or, in case of disagreement, by majority. “The way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether there was a decision of the Election Commission for this entire exercise of special intensive revision,” Singh submitted. The CJI directed that the petition be listed next week.
Background: The Statutory Framework
The ECI is a multi-member constitutional body established under . It consists of the CEC and two Election Commissioners. (the 2023 Act) lays down the procedure for the Commission’s functioning. provides that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision, that business shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and that differences between the CEC and Election Commissioners are to be decided by majority.
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, contends that this framework is being undermined. According to the petition, between and , the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 formal objections against steps taken in the name of the ECI that they allegedly considered to have been taken without the approval of the full Commission. These objections reportedly cover changes to Form 6 (the voter registration form), centralisation of the electoral-roll database, and the filing of appeals in West Bengal relating to the SIR process.
Key Allegations in the Petition
The plea alleges a “progressive centralisation” of decision-making powers within the ECI. It claims that agendas and minutes were absent or delayed, electoral-roll procedures were altered without collective approval, and appeals were filed without the knowledge or approval of the two Election Commissioners. Specifically, the petition points to the SIR exercise—a nationwide revision of electoral rolls—as a decision that may not have been a valid Commission decision.
One of the most contentious issues is the alteration of Form 6 in to require applicants to state whether they, their parents, or grandparents existed in the electoral roll of the last SIR. The petition relies on a objection allegedly recorded by Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi, with Sukhbir Singh Sandhu concurring. Another issue concerns approximately 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the name of the ECI before against electors whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. The petition cites an noting attributed to Sandhu questioning who had authorised the filing of those appeals.
The petition does not ask the to determine at this stage whether each disputed action was taken without lawful authority. Instead, it seeks production of the ECI’s primary records—including minutes, file notings, approval sheets, and orders—to ascertain the truth.
Legal Questions Raised
At the heart of the petition is a constitutional question: Can the powers vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member body under Article 324 be exercised, in fact or in substance, by one officeholder without the participation that the Constitution and the 2023 Act require? The petitioner argues that if such unilateral exercise is permitted, decisions determining who is on the electoral roll—and therefore who may vote—may not be taken by the constitutional authority created for that purpose.
The plea seeks a writ of calling upon CEC Gyanesh Kumar to show under what authority he has allegedly acted as though he were individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power of the ECI. It also seeks a declaration that the SIR exercise and all actions, decisions, and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to it be declared and without lawful authority. Additionally, the petition requests the suspension of the CEC pending adjudication, preservation and production of all physical and electronic records, and the constitution of an independent or headed by a retired judge.
The ECI’s Response
The Election Commission has disputed the allegations. In a statement following media reports on the objections, the ECI said that all key decisions had the unanimous approval of all three members. It described the internal notes and objections as part of normal discussions during the decision-making process. The poll panel also clarified that communications sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary related to an officer on deputation and did not concern policy or IT division matters.
However, the petitioner maintains that the pattern of objections raises serious doubts about the validity of several decisions, especially those pertaining to the SIR. The ’s willingness to hear the matter next week indicates that the Apex Court considers the issues serious enough to warrant judicial scrutiny.
Implications for Electoral Integrity
This case has profound implications for the functioning of the Election Commission and the integrity of electoral rolls. If the court finds that the CEC exceeded his authority, it could invalidate significant portions of the SIR exercise, potentially affecting millions of voters. The case also tests the strength of the statutory safeguards in the 2023 Act designed to ensure collective decision-making in a multi-member constitutional body.
For legal practitioners, the case raises important points under administrative law and constitutional interpretation. The within statutory bodies, the scope of , and the evidentiary value of internal objections and notings are all likely to be explored. The court’s eventual ruling could set a precedent for how other multi-member regulatory and constitutional bodies are required to function.
What Lies Ahead
The will hear the petition next week. The bench is likely to examine the statutory framework, the nature of the objections raised by the Election Commissioners, and the extent of judicial review over internal decision-making processes of constitutional authorities. The petitioner has sought early listing, and the court’s agreement suggests that the matter will be taken up promptly.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the ECI’s records and the extent to which the court is willing to scrutinise the internal workings of the poll panel. For now, the central question remains: can the CEC act alone, or must every decision bear the stamp of collective approval? The answer could redefine the balance of power within India’s election machinery.
