The Supreme Court will hear a petition challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and seeking to invalidate the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and seeking to invalidate the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed on Tuesday, September 29, to list the matter for hearing next week after senior advocate Vikas Singh sought an urgent hearing on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh.
Petition Alleges Unilateral Decisions
The petition alleges that Kumar exercised powers belonging collectively to the Election Commission without obtaining the approval of the other election commissioners.
It refers to reported objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the allegations, the two commissioners raised objections at least 14 times over ten months concerning decisions and directions associated with electoral rolls and the SIR process.
The plea argues that Article 324 of the Constitution entrusts electoral administration to the Election Commission as a multimember constitutional body—not solely to the chief election commissioner.
It also cites Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, under which matters should ordinarily be decided unanimously or, when differences arise, according to the majority opinion.
Petitioner Seeks Suspension and Cancellation of SIR
The petitioner has reportedly sought the suspension of Kumar and a writ of quo warranto, requiring him to explain the authority under which he allegedly exercised the Commission’s collective powers.
The plea also asks the Supreme Court to declare the nationwide SIR and decisions arising from it invalid from the beginning.
Election Commission Rejects Policy-Dispute Claim
The Election Commission has disputed the interpretation of the reported internal correspondence. It said letters written by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary related to an officer serving on deputation and did not concern policy decisions or the Commission’s information-technology division.
The allegations have therefore not been judicially established.
The Supreme Court has only agreed to list the petition for an early hearing. It has not suspended the chief election commissioner, stayed the electoral-roll revision or ruled on the legality of the SIR exercise.
About the Author
