Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response on Plea Challenging CEC’s Exercise of Poll Panel Powers

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also sought responses from the three Election Commissioners after senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, alleged that the functioning of the poll panel had departed from the statutory framework governing it.

Singh argued that the court should consider interim measures, claiming that the manner in which the ECI was functioning had raised concerns among citizens. He alleged that the CEC was exercising constitutional powers in a manner inconsistent with the law under which the office operates.

The Bench, however, said it would first require authenticated material concerning the allegations. The court observed that if any decision was ultimately found to be unlawful, it retained the power to set it aside.

Singh also requested that, until the next hearing, all ECI decisions be required to have unanimous approval. The Bench pointed out that while the Commissioners were expected to seek consensus, decisions in the absence of unanimity are determined by majority.

The court further noted that the petition relied in part on a news report and said it wanted to hear the Election Commission's version before reaching any conclusion. The Bench observed that media reports could be either fully or partially accurate and said the respondents would be given an opportunity to respond before the court examined whether the applicable legal framework had been followed.

According to the Supreme Court's case-status information, the matter is tentatively scheduled for further hearing on October 26.

The petition seeks enforcement of what it describes as the collective decision-making structure of the Election Commission. It also seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC allegedly acted on behalf of the poll panel.

The petitioner has argued that Article 324 of the Constitution places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the "Commission", rather than an individual Chief Election Commissioner. The plea also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which it says requires decisions to be taken collectively.

The petition cites written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the plea, the two Commissioners raised objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over a number of decisions and actions allegedly undertaken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

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

The petition also refers to concerns allegedly expressed by the two Commissioners regarding what it describes as the "gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database", along with changes in the allocation of work within the ECI's information technology establishment.

The petitioner has asked the Supreme Court to declare that powers vested in the Election Commission under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as decisions of the Commission except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the poll body.

It has also sought directions requiring compliance with the collective decision-making process and the production and preservation of records relating to the disputed decisions.

The ECI, meanwhile, has rejected the suggestion that differences among the Commissioners amount to an institutional "rupture". The poll panel has said that internal objections and written notes are part of the established deliberative and administrative processes within a multi-member constitutional body.

The Commission has also maintained that its decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, were taken unanimously, and that differences expressed by individual Commissioners form part of the normal functioning of such an institution.