The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Election Commission of India and the Centre following petitions that challenge the manner in which Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar allegedly made unilateral decisions affecting the country's electoral process. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana heard the public interest litigation on October 5, 2026, and sought responses within a week on allegations that strike at the heart of institutional governance at the poll panel.
The petitions, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, allege that the CEC made 14 decisions between October 2025 and August 2026 without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. These unilateral actions, the petitioners contend, violated statutory obligations and warrant criminal prosecution of the CEC for alleged violations during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise of electoral rolls.
Scale of Alleged Voter Deletions
The scale of the alleged irregularities is substantial. According to the petitions, approximately 13 crore voters were deleted from electoral rolls during the SIR process. The petitioners also allege unauthorized modifications to Form 6, the statutory form used for registering new voters during the revision exercise. These allegations have raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral roll and the proper functioning of the Election Commission's decision-making structure.
The bench clarified during the hearing that it had not approved any changes to Form 6. This clarification distances the Court from endorsing the modifications while simultaneously shifting scrutiny toward the Election Commission regarding the alterations made to the voter registration form. If changes were made to Form 6, they were undertaken by the Election Commission without judicial sanction.
Constitutional Framework for EC Decisions
The Court emphasized that decisions of the Election Commission must be unanimous or taken by majority vote, not made unilaterally by any single member, including the Chief Election Commissioner. The bench warned that unilateral decisions made without proper concurrence could be annulled. This warning reflects the constitutional principle that the Election Commission functions as a collegial body where decisions require consensus or majority agreement among its members.
The three-member structure of the Election Commission exists precisely to ensure that no single individual can exercise unchecked power over matters affecting the electoral process. The petitions argue that this structure was breached when the CEC allegedly made 14 decisions independently. The Court's warning that such decisions could be annulled suggests the bench views the allegations seriously enough to consider potential remedies if the claims are substantiated.
Interim Relief Declined
Despite the gravity of the allegations, the bench declined to pass an interim order suspending the CEC from office. This decision reflects the Court's cautious approach to granting interim relief in matters concerning high constitutional office holders. The Court chose instead to issue notice and seek responses, allowing both the Election Commission and the Centre an opportunity to present their version of events before considering any extraordinary relief.
The one-week deadline for responses is relatively short, indicating the Court's sense of urgency in the matter. The quick turnaround suggests the bench intends to move swiftly through the initial stages of the proceedings, though the ultimate resolution of the substantive issues may take considerably longer.
Nature of the Allegations
The petitions raise multiple layers of concern. First, they challenge the procedural propriety of how decisions were made within the Election Commission. Second, they allege substantive violations of statutory duties during the SIR exercise. Third, they seek criminal prosecution, which indicates the petitioners believe the conduct crossed into criminal territory rather than merely administrative or procedural impropriety.
The deletion of 13 crore voters from electoral rolls, if true, would represent one of the largest alterations to the electoral register in recent times. Such deletions can disenfranchise citizens and raise questions about whether proper procedures were followed before names were removed. The allegations regarding unauthorized modifications to Form 6 compound these concerns by suggesting that the rules governing voter registration itself may have been altered without proper authority.
Electoral Governance and Institutional Safeguards
The case touches on fundamental questions about how the Election Commission should function and what safeguards exist to prevent abuse of power by its leadership. The Election Commission is vested with significant authority over the conduct of elections, including the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. This authority must be exercised in accordance with law and within the constraints of the Commission's collegial structure.
If the allegations are proven, they would represent a serious breach of institutional norms. The Election Commission's credibility depends partly on public confidence that decisions are made through proper procedures and with appropriate checks and balances. Unilateral decision-making by the CEC, even with good intentions, undermines this institutional structure.
What Comes Next
The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice rather than dismiss the petitions outright suggests the bench found the allegations sufficiently serious to warrant examination. The petitioners will now have the opportunity to present detailed evidence supporting their claims during the substantive hearing. The Election Commission and the Centre will have the chance to respond to the specific allegations and explain the decisions in question.
The one-week deadline for responses means the case will likely return before the bench in early October 2026 for further directions. At that stage, the Court may decide whether to admit the petitions formally, whether to grant any interim relief, and what further proceedings are necessary to adjudicate the substantive claims. If the Court finds merit in the allegations, it may issue directions to ensure that future decisions are made in compliance with the collegial structure mandated by law. The potential for criminal prosecution, if the allegations are proven, also introduces an element of personal accountability for senior election officials.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.