The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list for hearing next week a fresh petition challenging the manner in which the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) are being exercised and questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the multi-member poll panel.
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list for hearing next week a fresh petition challenging the manner in which the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) are being exercised and questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the multi-member poll panel.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant by senior advocate Vikas Singh, following which the CJI Kant said, “List it next week.”
The petition seeks enforcement of the collective decision-making framework governing the ECI and a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC has reportedly acted in the name of the poll panel.
The plea contends that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission” and not in an individual Chief Election Commissioner.
It further relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for collective decision-making, with matters on which there is no unanimity to be decided by majority.
The plea has relied upon contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.
The objections, as detailed in the petition, relate to communications and orders allegedly issued without the poll body's approval, the absence of agendas before and minutes after meetings, foreign travel undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.
The plea also refers to concerns allegedly raised by the two Election Commissioners over the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”, and changes in the work allocation of the poll body's IT establishment.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the poll body except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the Commission.
The plea also seeks declaratory and mandatory directions to ensure compliance with the collective decision-making framework, besides production and preservation of relevant records concerning the disputed decisions.
Meanwhile, the ECI has maintained that the reported differences between the Commissioners do not amount to an institutional “rupture” and that internal objections and written notes are established mechanisms in a multi-member constitutional body.
The poll panel has also said that its decisions, including those relating to the SIR exercise, were unanimous and that differences raised by Commissioners form part of the normal deliberative and administrative process.