Supreme Court Refuses to Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar Ex Parte, Issues Notice on Pleas Challenging ECI Decisions

The Supreme Court declined an ex parte plea to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice on petitions challenging alleged unilateral ECI decisions.

What Happened

The Supreme Court on Monday, 5 October 2026, declined to pass an ex parte interim order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and instead issued notice on petitions challenging alleged unilateral decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said it should first obtain the response of the Election Commission and the other respondents to the allegations made in the petitions. The bench ultimately issued notice and also issued notice on a connected petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate interim measures, including suspension of the CEC. His submissions relied, among other provisions, on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, which provides for decisions of the Commission to be taken unanimously as far as possible and, where there is no unanimity, by majority.

Counsel also referred to Section 16, which provides legal immunity to the CEC for acts done in the discharge of official duties, and argued that interim protection was necessary. The petitioner’s submissions were disputed matters placed before the Court and were not findings by the bench.

The bench raised the practical consequence of suspending the CEC, including who would conduct elections if the Election Commission’s functioning were disrupted. When counsel suggested that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the Commission’s functions, the bench maintained that it first needed responses from the respondents.

The CJI also indicated that the Court could not decide the matter solely on the basis of newspaper reports and that authenticated material would be necessary. Justice Bagchi similarly questioned whether the Court could conclude ex parte that all the decisions in question had been taken unilaterally without first hearing the respondents.

Background & Context

The petitions followed a report in The Indian Express concerning around 14 decisions relating to the SIR which, according to the report and the petitions, were taken in the name of the Election Commission despite objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

LiveLaw reported that, according to the petitions, the two Election Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various SIR-related steps. These allegations have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and the respondents’ position in the present proceedings was still awaited at the stage covered by the order.

Rakesh Kumar Singh’s petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. Among other reliefs, it seeks a declaration that the Election Commission, as a multi-member constitutional body, cannot have its powers exercised individually by the CEC. It also seeks examination of the Commission’s primary records to determine whether the disputed actions complied with the constitutional and statutory framework. The interim relief sought includes suspension of the CEC.

The connected petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks quashing of the 14 allegedly unilateral decisions and the constitution of an independent inquiry headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

A separate challenge concerning the appointment process under the CEC law is pending before a larger bench. That proceeding is distinct from the petitions considered on 5 October.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India, before a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
• Date: 5 October 2026.
• Case: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026; Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401/2026, as reported by LiveLaw.
• Constitutional provisions: Article 32 and Article 324, as relied upon in the Rakesh Kumar Singh petition.
• Statutory provisions: Sections 16 and 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, as referred to in counsel’s submissions.
• Parties: Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi, petitioners, against the Union of India, Election Commission of India, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other respondents. The respondent list is stated in the common terms reflected in the reports.
• Relief sought: A declaration against unilateral exercise of ECI powers, interim suspension of the CEC, quashing of the allegedly unilateral decisions and an independent inquiry.
• Current status: The request for an ex parte interim suspension was not granted; notice was issued. The Court has made no finding on the merits of the allegations and no hearing date was confirmed in the reports reviewed.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the distinction between refusing an ex parte interim request and deciding the underlying case.

The petitioners sought immediate relief against a serving constitutional office-holder, but the bench indicated that it wanted responses and records before deciding whether any statutory or constitutional violation had occurred. The Court also made clear that newspaper reports alone would not be sufficient basis for an order.

For law students and practitioners, the proceedings also highlight the significance of the statutory framework governing decision-making within the Election Commission. Section 18 requires the Commission’s business to be transacted unanimously as far as possible and, where the members differ, by majority. The CJI orally observed during the hearing that the Commission is expected to follow that framework, while also indicating that any consequences would depend on what the record ultimately establishes.

That observation is important, but it is not itself a final ruling on the allegations in the petitions. Likewise, Justice Bagchi’s observation that decisions shown by the records to have lacked the required unanimity could potentially be restrained was made in the course of hearing and should not be treated as an order that those decisions were unlawful.

The Court’s questions about who would conduct elections if the CEC were suspended also underline the institutional consequences of granting immediate relief against the head of the Election Commission. At this stage, however, the Court has issued notice rather than making a determination on the allegations.

Closing

The Supreme Court has therefore moved the petitions forward procedurally without deciding whether the Election Commission’s decisions were unlawfully taken or whether the CEC should be suspended.

The next stage will turn on the responses and records placed before the Court. Until then, the allegations concerning the SIR decisions remain allegations made in the petitions, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made against the CEC or the other respondents.