NEW DELHI: A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court alleging that CEC Gyanesh Kumar took and continues to take decisions in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
According to the plea, the petitioner has sought a writ of Quo Warranto, asking the CEC to explain under what authority he acted as though he could individually exercise the collective decision-making powers vested under Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission as a body.
The ECI consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. Gyanesh Kumar is currently the CEC, while Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the two Election Commissioners.
According to a report in Bar and Bench the petition states that the Commission’s business is to be conducted unanimously as far as possible. Where the CEC and Election Commissioners differ on an issue, the matter is to be decided according to the majority opinion under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The plea alleges that between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026, the two Election Commissioners raised at least 14 separate objections to steps taken in the name of the ECI without its approval.
It further alleges “progressive centralisation” of power, along with the absence or delay of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and the filing of appeals without the knowledge or approval of the two Election Commissioners.
The petition relies on reports about decisions taken by the ECI despite objections from the two Election Commissioners. The issue also relates to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The plea argues that if the constitutional powers of the Election Commission as a multi-member body can be exercised by one office without the participation required under the Constitution and the 2023 Act, questions arise over decisions concerning electoral rolls and voting rights.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that if the CEC exercised or continues to exercise such collective authority without a decision of the Commission taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act, such exercise of authority should be declared invalid.
The plea has also sought a declaration that the Special Intensive Revision and all actions, decisions, directions and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to it be declared void ab initio and without lawful authority.
The development comes amid petitions and legal challenges concerning alleged unilateral decisions linked to the SIR exercise. The Election Commission has maintained that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously with the approval of the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.
