Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, CJI Suryakant Gives Hearing Date

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear next week a petition filed regarding the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition alleged that some decisions were taken in the name of the Election Commission without the consent or participation of the other two Election Commissioners. The petitioner has called it a constitutional question related to the multi-member system of the Election Commission and the collective decision process. On Tuesday, senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, following which the CJI directed the listing to next week.

What are the allegations made in the petition?

The petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh has claimed that the collective powers of the Election Commission were allegedly used by the CEC alone. It has been said in the petition that under Article 324 of the Constitution, the responsibility of supervision and control of elections has been given to an institution named Election Commission. The petitioner argues that the CEC is certainly the Chairman of the Commission, but this does not give him the right to personally use the collective powers of the Commission.

What is the matter with the objections of the election commissioners?

The petition also mentions 14 objections allegedly filed between October 2025 and August 2026. It said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had lodged objections regarding some decisions and procedures. The petitioner claims that these steps were taken in his name without the approval of the Commission. However, all these allegations are still claims made in the petition and the Supreme Court has not given any final conclusion on them.

Why was the question raised regarding SIR?

An important part of the petition is related to Special Intensive Revision of Voter List or SIR. The petitioner has said that if the decisions related to SIR were not taken under the collective process of all the members of the Commission, then it is necessary to examine the legal validity related to them. On this basis, the petition demands that the SIR and its related decisions, instructions and subsequent actions be declared invalid ab initio.

What is the provision in the law of 2023?

The petition also cites Section 18 of the 2023 Act relating to the appointment, service conditions and tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. The petitioner says that collective decision process should be followed in the functioning of the Commission and in case of disagreement, the decision should be taken on the basis of majority. On the basis of this provision, the petition has raised questions on the validity of the alleged unilateral decisions.

What has been demanded through ‘quo warranto’?

In the petition, a demand has been made to issue a quo warranto writ against the Chief Election Commissioner. This means, ‘By what authority?’ The petitioner wants the CEC to be asked under what legal authority he individually exercised the commission's collective decision-making power. Apart from this, demands have also been made in the petition like suspending the CEC from the post and conducting an independent inquiry into the records of the commission.

What will happen in the Supreme Court now?

At present the Supreme Court has not given any final decision on the petition. The court has only directed to list the matter for hearing next week. During the hearing, the court will hear the arguments of the parties on the constitutional and legal questions raised in the petition. In particular, the issue that will come to the fore is how the constitutional and statutory system of collective decision is implemented in a multi-member Election Commission and to what extent the allegations made in relation to the decisions related to SIR can be judicially investigated.