Supreme Court to Hear Plea Questioning ECI Decision-Making Under CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear next week a petition questioning the manner in which decisions have been taken within the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Senior advocate Vikas Singh sought an early hearing, arguing that the statutory framework governing the multi-member Election Commission requires decisions to be taken unanimously, as far as possible, or according to the majority view when differences arise.

The petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution. It questions whether powers assigned to the Election Commission as a constitutional body can be exercised individually by the Chief Election Commissioner. The issue has gained attention amid reports of disagreements within the poll panel over several decisions linked to electoral-roll procedures and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). According to reports cited in the petition, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on multiple occasions between October 2025 and August 2026 regarding certain decisions and administrative steps.

The petition relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision deals with the Commission's internal decision-making process and provides for majority decision-making when members differ.

One important question before the court will be whether the disputed measures were actually decisions of the full Commission and whether the prescribed procedure was followed. The petition seeks access to relevant records, including minutes, file notings and approval documents, to establish how the decisions were made.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously. The poll body has also disputed suggestions that communications from the two Election Commissioners to the Cabinet Secretary represented a policy disagreement, saying they concerned the functioning of an officer on deputation.

The Supreme Court's decision to list the matter does not amount to a finding against the Election Commission or the CEC. The upcoming hearing is expected to focus on the constitutional and statutory framework governing collective decision-making within the country's election authority. The case could therefore bring greater judicial scrutiny to an important institutional question: how powers vested in a multi-member constitutional body should be exercised when its members disagree over electoral decisions.