The Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, issued notice to the Centre, the Election Commission of India and other respondents on petitions challenging alleged unilateral decisions taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to pass an interim order seeking Kumar’s suspension without first hearing the respondents. The court directed them to respond to the allegations.
The petitions claim that several SIR related decisions were taken in the name of the Election Commission despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Court Says ECI Decisions Must Follow Majority Rule
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, argued that the Election Commission is a multi member body and that its decisions must be taken either unanimously or by majority.
He referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that decisions should, as far as possible, be unanimous and, where there is disagreement, be decided by majority.
The bench said it presumed that the Election Commission had been following the statutory requirement.
“There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo,” the Chief Justice said, according to the court proceedings.
Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the court could assume that all the decisions were taken unilaterally without examining the official records.
He said that if the records showed that a particular decision was not taken unanimously or by majority, the court could examine whether it was legally valid.
The bench also observed that it could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports and sought responses from the concerned authorities.
Plea Seeks Suspension of CEC
Singh sought an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner, arguing that the alleged actions could affect citizens’ voting rights.
The bench, however, questioned how the Election Commission would function if the CEC were suspended and asked, “Who will conduct the elections?”
Singh submitted that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions of the Commission.
The court ultimately declined to grant the requested ex parte interim relief and issued notice to the respondents.
The notice was issued to the Union government, Election Commission of India, Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
14 SIR Decisions Under Challenge
The petitions were filed following reports that the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections to at least 14 decisions relating to the SIR process between October 2025 and August 2026.
One petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks examination of the Election Commission’s records to determine whether the disputed decisions were taken in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework.
A connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks quashing of the alleged unilateral decisions and an independent judicial inquiry or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with cybersecurity and IT experts.
The petition also alleges that around 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise. This figure is an allegation made in the petition and has not been established by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Says It Did Not Approve Modified Form 6
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant also clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6 being used during the SIR process.
“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear,” the CJI said, adding that the court would examine the records to determine who had made the changes.
The petitions will now be considered after the respondents file their responses.
