New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list next week a public interest petition seeking an interim direction that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar should not exercise the functions of CEC pending final hearing of the case.
Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, senior advocate Vikas Singh made an oral mentioning on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh of Patna. Singh sought an early listing, arguing that the Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body whose business must be transacted unanimously or, where there is disagreement, by majority. “The way the Election Commission is functioning, there is serious doubt over whether the decisions are unanimous,” he submitted. The CJI directed that the matter be listed next week.
The petition, filed under Article 32, urges the court to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon Kumar to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body. It contends that Article 324(1) vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Commission, not in the CEC personally, and that Article 324(3) constitutes the CEC only as Chairman.
Citing reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026, the plea alleges that decisions were issued in the Commission’s name without their concurrence. The objections, according to the petition, related to changes in Form 6, access to the ERONet/ECINet electoral-roll database, IT work allocation, communications issued without agendas or minutes, and appeals filed in the Commission’s name before West Bengal appellate tribunals.
Besides restraining Kumar pending adjudication, the petitioner has sought production of original institutional records and constitution of an independent judicial inquiry commission or SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. Interim relief sought includes a direction that, during the pendency of the petition, the Commission’s business be transacted by the unanimous decision of Sandhu and Joshi.
This is the second petition before the apex court raising questions over the CEC’s functioning amid controversy over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Election Commission has maintained that differences of opinion form part of normal institutional deliberation and that SIR-related orders received unanimous approval. The court has not yet issued notice or granted any interim order; it has only agreed to list the mentioning for next week.
