The Supreme Court will hear a petition challenging the Election Commission decision-making process. The plea questions the powers of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The petitioner has alleged that the CEC took several decisions without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners. The petition also questions whether the three-member Election Commission must take important decisions collectively.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led bench heard the matter on September 29. Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the petition before the court. He requested an early hearing. The court agreed to list the matter next week. (indianexpress.com)
Petition raises questions about CEC’s powers
The petition centres on the functioning of India’s three-member Election Commission. It raises questions about the role of the Chief Election Commissioner within the constitutional body.
According to the petition, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections to several decisions. The petitioner claims that the two commissioners raised objections to at least 14 decisions between October 2025 and August 2026.
The petition argues that the CEC cannot independently exercise powers that belong to the Election Commission as a whole.
However, the Supreme Court has not yet examined the merits of these allegations. The claims will remain subject to judicial consideration during the proceedings.
Article 324 forms a key part of the plea
The petition refers to Article 324 of the Constitution. This provision gives the Election Commission control over the supervision, direction and conduct of elections.
The petitioner argues that Article 324 establishes the Election Commission as a collective constitutional body. Therefore, the plea questions whether the CEC can make important decisions without the concurrence of the other commissioners.
The petition also cites the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Section 18 of the law deals with the Commission’s transaction of business.
The court may examine how these constitutional and statutory provisions apply to the current dispute.
SIR controversy adds to the legal dispute
The petition comes amid a wider controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Election Commission has undertaken the SIR exercise to revise and verify electoral rolls. The process has faced criticism from several opposition parties.
Critics have raised concerns about voter deletions and the procedures used during the revision. They have also questioned some decisions linked to the implementation of the exercise.
The petitioner has referred to several SIR-related decisions in the plea. According to the petition, some actions proceeded without the approval of all three Election Commissioners.
The Election Commission has rejected such allegations and defended its decision-making process.
Election Commission says SIR decision was unanimous
The Election Commission has maintained that the decision to conduct the nationwide SIR received unanimous approval.
The poll panel has said that all three Election Commissioners approved the decision. It has also rejected reports suggesting that internal discussions amounted to a formal institutional disagreement.
Therefore, the Commission’s position differs from the allegations made in the petition.
The Supreme Court hearing could now bring greater focus to the legal framework governing the Commission’s internal decision-making.
Plea seeks judicial examination of CEC’s functioning
The petition also seeks judicial action concerning Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning as Chief Election Commissioner.
Petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh has filed a writ petition seeking a quo warranto against the CEC. The petition asks the court to examine whether Kumar acted within the powers assigned to him under the constitutional and statutory framework. (livelaw.in)
The petitioner has also challenged decisions that he claims did not receive collective approval.
However, filing a petition does not establish the allegations as fact. The Supreme Court will decide which legal questions require consideration.
Internal differences become part of public debate
The case comes after reports of differences among members of the Election Commission.
The Commission has three members. The CEC serves as its head, while the other two commissioners also have statutory roles in its functioning.
Reports about disagreements between the commissioners have attracted political attention. Opposition leaders have cited these reports while questioning the transparency of the poll panel.
The Election Commission, however, has said that discussions and differences within a multi-member body do not necessarily indicate a breakdown in its functioning.
The upcoming court proceedings could therefore examine how such differences affect the Commission’s formal decision-making process.
Opposition parties have raised concerns
Several opposition parties have criticised the Election Commission during the ongoing SIR controversy.
Their concerns include voter-list revisions, deletion of names and the procedures used to verify voters. Some opposition leaders have also demanded greater transparency from the poll panel.
The Election Commission has defended its actions and maintained that it follows the applicable legal procedures.
The Supreme Court case is separate from the broader political debate. It will focus on the legal questions raised by the petitioner.
Court may examine collective decision-making
One important issue before the Supreme Court will be the interpretation of the Election Commission’s decision-making structure.
The petition argues that the Commission must act collectively. It questions whether the CEC can independently take decisions on matters that fall within the authority of the full Commission.
At the same time, the court will need to examine the provisions of the Constitution and the 2023 law governing the Commission.
The hearing could therefore provide an opportunity to clarify the respective roles of the CEC and the other Election Commissioners.
SIR remains at the centre of the controversy
The legal challenge arrives while the SIR process continues to generate political debate.
The revision of electoral rolls can affect the names included in voter lists. Therefore, political parties and civil society groups have closely monitored the exercise.
The Election Commission has said that the process aims to maintain accurate electoral rolls. Meanwhile, critics have sought greater safeguards for voters whose names may not appear in draft rolls.
The Supreme Court’s proceedings could add a legal dimension to this continuing debate.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court has agreed to list the petition for hearing next week. At that stage, the court may hear arguments from the petitioner and consider the legal issues raised in the plea.
The court has not yet ruled on whether the alleged decisions violated the law. It also has not made any finding against the Chief Election Commissioner.
The case therefore remains at an early stage.
If the court examines the petition in detail, the proceedings could clarify how India’s three-member Election Commission should conduct its business. They could also address the relationship between the CEC and the other commissioners.
For now, the Election Commission decision-making process remains at the centre of the legal challenge. The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will determine how far the court takes up the questions raised by the petitioner.