Supreme Court hears pleas against CEC Gyanesh Kumar; ECI says SIR decisions were unanimous

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, is set on Tuesday, 27 October, to take up a batch of petitions questioning how Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has run the Election Commission of India (ECI). The hearing comes a day after the Commission filed an affidavit insisting that every contested decision on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was taken unanimously by all three Commissioners.

The cases before the Bench

The lead matter is Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, which seeks a writ of quo warranto against the CEC and a declaration that the ECI, as a multi-member body, cannot act on the say of one member. It is listed with a criminal writ petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who wants the disputed decisions quashed and an inquiry headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, and with PILs by the Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

Also listed is Rahul Gandhi and Ors. v. Election Commission of India, W.P.(C) No. 1351/2026, filed by the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha along with leaders including Mallikarjun Kharge, Akhilesh Yadav, Tejashwi Yadav, Supriya Sule and Sanjay Raut. It asks the Court to call for the Commission’s files and notings, test whether the CEC exercised collective powers alone, review the modified Form 6 and the ECINet and ERONet databases, and order an independent audit of deletions with booth-wise lists of removed voters. The plea does not reopen the validity of the SIR itself, which the Supreme Court upheld in May 2026.

The petitions rely on an Indian Express report that around 14 SIR-related decisions were issued in the Commission’s name between October 2025 and August 2026 despite written objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

What the ECI has told the Court

In its short counter-affidavit, filed on Monday night through Deputy Election Commissioner Bhanu Prakash Yeturu and approved by all three Commissioners, the ECI said the three SIR orders, dated 24 June 2025, 27 October 2025 and 14 May 2026, were unanimous. It argued that notes or queries recorded by an individual Commissioner on file are not decisions of the Commission, and that the petitions rest on a single newspaper report.

On Form 6, the voter enrolment form, the Commission said it had no power to amend it, since only the Centre can do so under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It said the SIR declaration is a separate document, conceded that the online interface may have given the impression of an amendment, and said the two have been split online since 21 October. It added that a work-allocation order issued in July by a deputationist officer was never implemented, that no name can be added or deleted without an Electoral Registration Officer’s order, and that experts from IIT Madras and IISc Bengaluru are reviewing ECINet.

The ECI also contended that a plea to restrain the CEC is not maintainable because Article 324(5) allows his removal only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge. It sought time to file a detailed reply, citing the Dussehra break.

How the case got here

On 5 October the Court issued notice on Singh’s petition but declined to suspend the CEC, saying it first needed authentic information. On 15 October a Bench of the CJI and Justice Bagchi issued notice on the opposition leaders’ plea, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners. The CJI remarked then that issuing notice did not amount to condemning anyone, and indicated that the Court could annul decisions found to be contrary to law.

Outside court, advocate Prashant Bhushan, a prominent voice in the anti-CEC protests, drew BJP criticism after saying on 15 October that protesters wanted a change of government. No legal action has been reported over the remark.

What to watch

The key questions on Tuesday are whether the Bench calls for the Commission’s original records, grants the ECI more time, or sets a schedule for final hearing. Any order to produce internal notings would test the ECI’s core defence.

Sources

• LiveLaw: Plea Against ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, SIR Decisions : Live Updates From Supreme Court
• LiveLaw: All SIR Decisions Unanimously Taken; Form 6 Not Amended : ECI Tells Supreme Court
• LawChakra: Opposition Parties’ Joint Plea On ECI Functioning: SC To Hear Tomorrow
• Business Today: SIR orders were unanimous, Form 6 unchanged: EC defends CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Supreme Court
• NewsGram: Decisions were unanimously passed: Election Commission submits affidavit to the Supreme Court
• The Tribune: We are not sitting in ivory towers: Supreme Court during hearing on Rahul Gandhi’s SIR plea
• LawChakra: Prashant Bhushan Says We All Want Regime Change At CJP Event