SC Refuses To Pass Interim Order To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an interim order on a plea seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and instead issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners on petitions challenging decisions related to the SIR, allegedly taken unilaterally in the name of the poll panel.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing petitions questioning whether the Chief Election Commissioner can exercise powers constitutionally and statutorily vested in the multi-member Election Commission without the concurrence of the other Election

The petitions also sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry into alleged deletions of voters, besides challenging the manner in which decisions relating to the electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were allegedly taken.

During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, said, “Every citizen of the country is feeling that the Election Commission’s credibility is at stake."

Arguing for interim relief, Singh told the bench, “ECs and ECI are more powerful today than any other constitutional authority."

He further argued that the Prime Minister and even judges do not have the protection that, according to him, the Election Commission currently enjoys.

“I am wanting an interim order today to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner," Singh said.

At one point during the hearing, Singh also told the Supreme Court, “If no interim order is passed, the country will burn."

The bench, however, declined to grant the requested interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

Instead, it issued notice to the ECI, Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners, seeking their response to the allegations raised in the petitions.

“They will respond to us, and we expect them to respond clearly," the Supreme Court said.

The bench also addressed the petitioners’ contention that decisions had allegedly been taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.

CJI Surya Kant observed that the Election Commissioners are expected to take unanimous decisions and that where there is no unanimity, the decision has to be taken by majority.

“They are expected to make unanimous decisions. If there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority. Today, you are going only on a news report," the CJI told Singh.

The Supreme Court further indicated that if the records placed before it establish that a decision was not taken unanimously in accordance with the applicable framework, it could annul the orders concerned.

The observation is significant in the context of the petitions, which challenge decisions allegedly taken in the name of the Election Commission without approval from the other Election Commissioners.

The court’s indication also means that the records and responses from the poll panel could become central to determining whether the disputed decisions complied with the collective decision-making framework.

The court, however, did not grant the petitioners’ request for an immediate interim suspension of the CEC.

Plea Challenged Individual Exercise Of ECI Powers

The petitions challenged whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar can single-handedly exercise powers constitutionally designated for the entire multi-member poll panel.

The plea sought enforcement of the collective decision-making framework governing the ECI and a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC has reportedly acted in the name of the poll panel.

The petition contended that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission" and not in an individual Chief Election Commissioner.

It further relied on 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.

According to the plea, matters where there is no unanimity are to be decided by majority.

The matter was earlier mentioned before CJI Surya Kant on September 29 by senior advocate Vikas Singh, following which the CJI had said, “List it next week."

14 Objections Cited In Plea

The petitioners relied upon contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

According to the plea, the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

The objections detailed in the petition relate to communications and orders allegedly issued without the poll body’s approval, the absence of agendas before meetings and minutes after meetings, foreign travel undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.

The plea also referred to concerns allegedly raised by the two Election Commissioners over the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database" and changes in the work allocation of the poll body’s IT establishment.

The petitioners sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the poll body except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the Commission.