New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that key decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally, saying the Election Commission and others must first be heard.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also issued notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India (ECI), CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
"Let's first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision…," observed the bench.
The petition relied on a report claiming that 14 crucial SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate suspension of the CEC, contending that the alleged unilateral decisions posed a serious threat to electoral democracy. Referring to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, Singh submitted that ECI decisions were required to be unanimous or, failing that, taken by majority.
As Singh sought suspension of the CEC, the bench questioned the feasibility of suspending the CEC, observing that it could stall the functioning of the poll panel. "Who will conduct the elections?" the bench asked.
Singh responded that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions. The bench said it would have to first examine the allegations after receiving responses from the respondents.
The CJI observed that the statutory framework was mandatory and said, "If there is any violation, we will undo."
Justice Bagchi also questioned whether the court could grant such relief without hearing the ECI, saying that if the records ultimately showed that decisions were not unanimous, the court could declare them ultra vires. The CJI further cautioned that the court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The plea challenged the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law. The plea has sought a direction against Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.
The petition relied on at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners. (ANI)
Also Read: Supreme Court Denies Bail to Shyamkanu Mahanta in Zubeen Garg Death Case