In short: On 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre on pleas alleging that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took Special Intensive Revision (SIR) decisions without the other two Election Commissioners' approval. The Court refused, for now, to suspend him. Responses have been sought within a week, and the allegations remain unproven.

What happened in court?

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard two petitions. One was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, a Patna resident, and the other by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The bench issued notice and declined to pass an interim order suspending the CEC. It said it would first like to hear the other side.

Notice went to the Union of India, the ECI, CEC Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. Reports say replies have been sought within a week.

What are the petitioners asking for?

  • Singh's plea: It asks the Court to decide whether the CEC has individually exercised powers that belong to the Commission as a whole. As interim relief, it seeks the CEC's suspension, with the other two commissioners running the Commission's business and any vacancy filled on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.

What is the background?

The ECI has three members: the CEC and two Election Commissioners. Article 324 of the Constitution vests decision-making power in the Commission as a body.

The pleas follow an Indian Express report of 25 September. It said Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over ten months to SIR-related decisions and orders issued without their knowledge or recommendation. The petition lists 14 objections recorded between 28 October 2025 and 14 August 2026. Specific allegations in the pleas include:

  • a change to Form 6, the voter registration form, adding ancestral details through software without the legal amendment the election rules require;
  • software in Goa allegedly lacking a feature to restore 97 eligible voters;
  • more than 16.10 lakh appeals allegedly filed in the ECI's name in West Bengal without the other commissioners' knowledge.

The ECI has said differing views are a normal part of deliberations in any institution and that all its orders are legally valid and follow established procedure. It also said decisions on the SIR schedule were unanimous.

What did the Court say?

The bench said ECI decisions must be unanimous or by majority, and that it presumed this is how decisions were taken. The Chief Justice noted the allegations rest on newspaper reports, which may be fully, partly or not correct, and said the Court could not pass an order on that basis. Justice Bagchi asked whether the Court could decide without hearing the other side that all decisions were unilateral.

On Form 6, the Chief Justice said any modified form had not been approved by the Court and it would like to see who modified it.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh also pointed to Section 16 of the 2023 Act, which protects the CEC from legal action even after leaving office. He clarified he was not challenging that provision at present.

Who is affected and what should readers do?

The case concerns how the ECI takes decisions on electoral rolls, which determine who can vote. Nothing changes immediately for voters, and no decision has been struck down. Readers need not act, but can follow the Court's next hearing and the ECI's response.

Frequently asked questions

Has the Supreme Court suspended the CEC?

No. The Court refused to pass an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar and instead issued notice seeking responses.

Has the Court found that decisions were unilateral?

No. The allegations are yet to be proved. The Court said it presumed decisions were taken unanimously or by majority and wants the respondents to explain clearly.

What could happen next?

After the replies, the Court may examine the records. It indicated that any decision found not to follow the law could be injuncted or annulled.

Sources

Not legal advice. This page explains the law in general terms. Rules, fees and limits change, and your facts matter. Check the official source or consult a qualified advocate before acting. Disclaimer