Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition alleging that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took decisions in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. The CJI directed that the matter be listed next week.
Singh told the court that the ECI is a multi-member constitutional body and that its decisions are required to be taken unanimously or, where there is a difference of opinion, by majority. He questioned whether decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken with the approval of the full Commission.
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks a writ of quo warranto, asking the CEC to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised powers vested collectively in the ECI under Article 324 of the Constitution.
The ECI currently comprises CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the Commission is to be conducted, as far as possible, unanimously. In case of differences, matters are to be decided by majority.
The petition alleges that there was a pattern of centralised decision-making, including issues relating to electoral-roll procedures, agendas and minutes of Commission meetings, and the filing of appeals. It further refers to reports that the two Election Commissioners raised objections on at least 14 occasions between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 over decisions allegedly taken without their approval.
The allegations come amid wider scrutiny of the ECI’s handling of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Recent reporting has highlighted disagreements within the three-member Commission over several decisions connected with the exercise. The ECI has subsequently announced a number of decisions addressing some of the concerns raised by the two Election Commissioners.
The petitioner has argued that if powers constitutionally assigned to the Commission as a multi-member body were exercised by the CEC without the participation required under the Constitution and the 2023 law, the validity of such decisions would be open to question.
The plea has asked the Supreme Court to declare any exercise of collective ECI authority without a decision taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act invalid.
It has also sought a declaration that the SIR and related actions, decisions, directions and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to it be declared void for want of lawful authority. The Supreme Court has not yet adjudicated these allegations; the matter is scheduled to be considered next week.