Published Oct 05, 2026 | 5:19 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 05, 2026 | 5:19 PM
Synopsis: The Supreme Court on 5 October declined to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that SIR-related decisions were taken unilaterally, and issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission and other respondents. The petitions followed a journalistic expose that found Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sindhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to SIR decisions taken without their knowledge or against their recommendations.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 5 October, declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that several decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally, LiveLaw reported.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan instead issued notice to the Union government, the Election Commission, Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, IAS, and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna.
The petitions followed an Indian Express investigation that revealed that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions on the SIR that were taken without their knowledge or against their recommendations.
One of the petitions seeks a declaration that decisions of the Election Commission, a multi-member constitutional body, cannot be taken unilaterally. It also seeks examination of the Commission’s primary records to determine whether the disputed decisions were taken within the constitutional and statutory framework.
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, has also sought the interim suspension of Kumar as Chief Election Commissioner.
Also Read: SC didn’t approve modified Form 6: Chief Justice of India discredits Election Commission’s claim
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Singh, urged an interim order, saying it was necessary to restore confidence in the poll body.
“Some interim measures are needed as every citizen was now feeling unsafe about their voting rights,” he said.
Adv Singh referred to Section 18 of the CEC Act, which provides that decisions of the Election Commission should, as far as possible, be unanimous and, where there is no unanimity, should be decided by a majority.
He also referred to Section 16, which provides legal immunity to the CEC for acts done in the discharge of official duties. He argued that even Supreme Court judges do not have similar protection.
“We are dealing with a grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy. The elections were conducted with the ECI having some respect. But today we are having a situation where the CEC is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statutory framework,” he said.
“The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn.”
The Bench said that suspending the CEC would stall the functioning of the ECI and impact the conduct of elections. Adv Singh then urged the Court to direct the Election Commission to take decisions only unanimously or by majority.
“There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo,” the CJI responded.
Adv Singh contended that the Court cannot undo elections: “What all can your lordships undo? Your lordships cannot undo an election, or undo an elected government,” he said, and argued that the electoral roll itself had been vitiated by the alleged unilateral decisions.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
