SC to hear plea on CEC's functioning, electoral roll revision

The Cliff News | 29 September 2026

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant petition next week that questions the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea also seeks to declare the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as illegal.

This legal challenge comes in the wake of reports indicating substantial disagreements within the Election Commission. Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly lodged at least 14 objections over the past 10 months regarding decisions and orders related to the SIR process. They stated that some decisions were made without their knowledge or consultation.

However, the Election Commission has countered these claims, asserting that the communications from Sandhu and Joshi were concerning an officer on deputation and not related to policy or the IT division matters.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Plea

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, urged a three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, to expedite the hearing. Singh emphasized the constitutional intent behind a multi-member Commission, which mandates decisions by unanimity or majority.

"The purpose of having a multi-member Commission was that, and the statute says so, that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority. Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether the decision of the Election Commission also was there for this entire exercise of SIR," Singh argued.

He further highlighted that the Court's previous decisions were premised on the understanding that the Commission acts collectively. The petitioner's concern is that the current functioning raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of decisions, particularly concerning the SIR exercise.

The Chief Justice of India has directed that the matter be listed for hearing next week, indicating the urgency and importance attached to the petition.

Arguments Against CEC's Authority

The petition draws attention to alleged differences between CEC Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners, Sandhu and Joshi, referencing the objections raised by the latter. A core argument rests on Article 324(1) of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the "Commission" and not an individual Chief Election Commissioner.

The plea underscores that Article 324(2) establishes the Election Commission as comprising the CEC and other Election Commissioners appointed by the President. Furthermore, Article 324(3) designates the CEC as the Chairman of the Commission when other members are appointed.

"The constitutional text therefore deliberately separates membership of the Commission from the chairmanship of the Commission, and separates the chairmanship of the Commission from the Commission's power."

Vikas Singh clarified that the grievance is not about improper exercise of CEC powers, but rather about the CEC allegedly acting as if individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making authority of the Commission. This collective authority, as per Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act, is vested in the Commission as a body, not in the Chairman alone.

Petitioner's Demands from the Court

The petition seeks a quo warranto writ to compel CEC Kumar to demonstrate the legal authority under which he purports to exercise the collective decision-making power of the Election Commission individually. It requests the court to examine whether his actions align with the constitutional and statutory framework, particularly concerning the collective nature of the Commission's authority.

Additionally, the plea urges the court to solicit original and primary records from the Election Commission. The aim is to enforce the principle that powers vested in the Election Commission as a constitutional body cannot be exercised or represented as the Commission's act without adhering to the established constitutional and statutory framework, including Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The petitioner argues that if the power constitutionally vested in the multi-member body is, in practice, exercised by a single office without the required participation, it raises a serious constitutional question about whether decisions impacting voter eligibility are being made by the designated constitutional authority.

Declaration of Invalidity for SIR

The petitioner seeks a declaration that any exercise of collective authority by the CEC without a Commission decision taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act be declared "without lawful title". This would necessitate a thorough examination of the primary records to ascertain the decision-making process.

Furthermore, the plea calls for a declaration that powers under Article 324 must be exercised by the Election Commission as a collegial, multi-member body, adhering to the constitutional provisions and Section 18 of the 2023 Act. It demands that any communication or order issued as an act of the Commission must be pursuant to a decision taken unanimously or by majority.

Crucially, the petition requests that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), along with all associated actions and decisions, be declared invalid from inception and without legal authority. The argument is that the SIR was initiated without the requisite statutory or constitutional backing and without following due process.

The petitioner also asks the court to declare that any modifications to electoral rolls solely as part of the SIR are legally void. However, this would not affect changes to electoral rolls made through lawful procedures under the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.