Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Suspension Over Allegedly Unilateral SIR Decisions

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions questioning CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and alleging unilateral Election Commission decisions linked to SIR.

What Happened

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, October 5, 2026, a batch of petitions seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that certain Election Commission decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.

The matter is before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Live reporting on October 5 shows the bench assembled and the matter being taken up, but no final order or concluded outcome was available in the material reviewed for this article.

The petitions were filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and Advocate Tripathi. They question whether powers vested in the multi-member Election Commission were allegedly exercised by the CEC individually and seek a range of reliefs, including suspension of the CEC pending the proceedings.

The matter had been mentioned before the same bench on September 29. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the statutory framework requires decisions of the multi-member Commission to be taken collectively, either unanimously or by majority, and raised doubts about whether the disputed decisions had been made through that process.

The Court then agreed to list the matter for the following week.

The outcome of the October 5 hearing will be updated once a reported order or reliable account of the proceedings becomes available.

Background & Context

The petitions follow an Indian Express report, as relayed by PTI, concerning alleged objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to that report and the petitions, the two Commissioners objected on record at least 14 times between October 2025 and August 2026 to decisions and orders connected with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that they said had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

Those reported objections form the factual basis on which the petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to examine the Commission’s decision-making process. They remain allegations raised in the petitions and related reporting, not findings by the Court.

One issue raised concerns Form 6, the form used for registration as a voter. According to the petition as reported, Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi recorded an objection on May 16, 2026, concerning an alleged alteration requiring additional SIR-related information. The petition reportedly contends that such a change could not be made without following the applicable statutory process under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The petitioners also rely on Article 324 of the Constitution. Their argument is that the constitutional power over elections is vested in the Election Commission as a body, rather than in the Chief Election Commissioner acting independently. The legal question before the Court is therefore framed around institutional decision-making and the scope of the CEC’s role within a multi-member constitutional Commission.

Gyanesh Kumar was appointed Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025 and is due to serve until January 26, 2029.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India, before CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
• Date: The matter is listed for October 5, 2026. It was mentioned before the same bench on September 29, when an early listing was allowed.
• Petitioners: Rakesh Kumar Singh and Advocate Tripathi.
• Respondents: The Union Law Ministry, Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and Maneesh Garg, a senior Election Commission official.
• Constitutional provision: Article 324, relied upon by the petitioners in arguing that the Commission’s powers are collectively vested in the multi-member body.
• Other legal framework referred to: The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, in connection with the petition’s challenge concerning Form 6.
• Counsel: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared when the matter was mentioned on September 29. Advocate Chand Qureshi appears for the second petitioner.
• Current Status: The allegations remain untested. The Court has not made a finding that the CEC acted unlawfully or that the disputed SIR-related decisions are invalid. The October 5 hearing was underway in the latest report reviewed.

Why It Matters

At its core, the case raises a question of institutional design: how a multi-member constitutional body is expected to exercise powers vested in it, and what legal remedies may be available when a petitioner alleges that those powers were exercised by one office-holder rather than by the Commission collectively.

The reliefs sought by the petitions span several different legal categories. One petition asks the Court to examine whether the CEC was exercising powers belonging to the Commission as a whole and seeks suspension pending the final hearing. The petitions also seek declarations concerning unilateral decisions, scrutiny of the Commission’s records, and broader judicial intervention into decisions and measures challenged as lacking full Commission concurrence.

The second petition goes further in seeking the quashing of 14 allegedly unilateral decisions and related guidelines, directives and software modifications. It also seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials and an independent judicial inquiry or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by technical experts. These are prayers made by the petitioners, not remedies that the Court has granted.

For law students and practitioners, the proceedings illustrate how Article 324, rules governing the functioning of the Election Commission and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in a public interest case can converge around a question of institutional authority. They also highlight the distinction between an allegation, a prayer for relief and an eventual judicial finding.

That distinction is particularly important here. The Court has not, on the material reviewed, held that the CEC acted improperly, that the SIR process was unlawful, or that any of the disputed decisions should be quashed. The allegations remain to be tested in the proceedings.

Closing

The Supreme Court’s October 5 hearing places the internal decision-making structure of the Election Commission directly before the Court through petitions challenging the alleged exercise of collective powers by the CEC.

For now, the legal issue remains at the stage of hearing and examination. Whether the Court considers any of the requested reliefs, and how it approaches the petitioners’ interpretation of Article 324 and the Commission’s decision-making framework, will depend on the proceedings and any order that follows.

The outcome will be updated once a reliable report of the Court’s decision or directions is available.