New Delhi, Sept. 29: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a plea questioning the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and seeking an explanation from Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on the authority under which he allegedly exercised, unilaterally, powers vested collectively in the three-member poll panel.
The petition also seeks a declaration that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and consequential measures taken pursuant to it are void for want of lawful exercise of authority, preservation and production of relevant ECI records, and constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or SIT if the records disclose that decisions were taken without approval of the Commission.
Seeking an early listing, senior advocate Vikas Singh told a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana that the statutory scheme required decisions of the multi-member Commission to be taken unanimously or, where there was a difference of opinion, by majority. He submitted that serious questions arose over whether the SIR had been undertaken pursuant to a valid decision of the Commission.
The bench agreed to list the petition next week.
The petition, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, relies on Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. It contends that powers vested in the ECI cannot be exercised individually by the CEC and seeks a declaration that any such unilateral exercise of collective authority is unlawful and invalid.
The ECI presently comprises CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to the plea, between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026, the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections to steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without being collectively decided by the three-member Commission.
Pointing to what it describes as centralisation of decision-making, the petition questions whether powers constitutionally entrusted to the Commission as a body could be exercised by one of its members.
The plea seeks production before the Supreme Court of the complete original records concerning the Commission’s functioning, including minutes, approvals, work-allocation orders, IT-related records, changes to Form 6 and authorisation for appeals filed before West Bengal appellate tribunals.
It also seeks a declaration that the SIR and all decisions, directions and consequential measures taken solely pursuant to it are void ab initio if found to lack constitutional or statutory sanction. Any inclusion, exclusion, deletion, restoration or modification of names in electoral rolls flowing solely from such action should consequently have no legal effect, while lawful electoral-roll actions should remain unaffected.
The petitioner has further sought constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or SIT, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by experts in cybersecurity, information technology and electoral administration, if the records reveal that material decisions affecting electoral rolls, Form 6, ERONet/ECINet access or appeals were taken without a valid decision of the Commission.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
