SC to Hear Plea Challenging Individual Exercise of Powers by CEC Gyanesh Kumar Next Week

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday, who directed that it be listed next week.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before the CJI. The petition seeks enforcement of the ECI's collective decision-making framework and has also sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC allegedly acted in the name of the poll panel.

The plea relies on Article 324 of the Constitution, which places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the Election Commission. It argues that these powers belong to the Commission as a body rather than being exercised individually by the Chief Election Commissioner.

The petition also invokes Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for collective decision-making within the poll panel and stipulates that matters on which the members do not agree are to be decided by majority.

According to the petition, written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi record at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026. The petition alleges that these objections concerned decisions and actions taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

The issues cited in the petition include communications and orders allegedly issued without the approval of the Commission, the absence of agendas before meetings and minutes afterwards, foreign travel allegedly undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and appeals filed before tribunals in West Bengal.

The plea also refers to alleged concerns over the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and changes in the allocation of work within the ECI's IT establishment.

The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the Commission unless the constitutional and statutory framework governing the body has been followed.

It has also sought directions to ensure compliance with the collective decision-making process and asked for the production and preservation of records relating to the decisions under challenge.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that differences between its members do not constitute an institutional “rupture”. The poll panel has said that internal objections and written notes are established parts of deliberations within a multi-member constitutional body.

The ECI has also maintained that decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision exercise, were unanimous, while differences raised by individual Commissioners formed part of the normal deliberative and administrative process.

The Supreme Court's decision to list the petition next week brings the question of the ECI's collective functioning before the apex court. The court's cause-list system confirms that matters are being scheduled for the week beginning October 5.