SC notices ECI, Centre on plea questioning CEC Gyanesh Kumar's solo powers
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission after a petition alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar was unilaterally exercising powers constitutionally vested in the full three-member body — a charge backed, reportedly, by written objections from two sitting Election Commissioners spanning nearly a year. The bench declined interim relief but made clear it can annul any unlawful decision.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 5 October 2026 issued notice to the Centre , the ECI , and all three Election Commissioners on a plea questioning CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s exercise of poll panel powers.
The bench, led by CJI Surya Kant , declined interim directions but said it ‘can always annul any decision’ found to be unlawful.
The petition cites Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 CEC Act to argue that ECI powers must be exercised collectively.
Written objections reportedly filed by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026 form the evidentiary backbone of the plea.
The ECI has denied any institutional ‘rupture’, calling internal notes part of the normal deliberative process and asserting its decisions were unanimous.
The matter is tentatively listed for the next hearing on 26 October 2026 .
The Supreme Court on Monday, 5 October 2026, issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a petition challenging whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the multi-member poll body. The bench also sought responses from the three Election Commissioners.
What the Court Said
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to pass interim directions at this stage, stating the court would first require authenticated information on the allegations. “Let’s first have authenticated information on that. We can always annul any decision,” the bench observed.
The court also cautioned that the petition appeared to rely on a news report. “News reports may be fully or partially correct. We will like their response,” it said, emphasising that it would examine whether the law had been followed before intervening. The matter is tentatively listed for hearing on 26 October.
What the Petitioner Argued
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the credibility of the ECI had been undermined and that the CEC was acting contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body. “Today, the very CEC as a constitutional authority is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed,” Singh told the bench.
Singh urged that interim measures were necessary, arguing that the present functioning of the ECI had left citizens feeling unsafe about the electoral process. He alternatively sought a direction that, until the next date of hearing, all ECI decisions be taken unanimously. The bench, however, noted that Commissioners were already expected to arrive at unanimous decisions and, in the absence of unanimity, matters were to be decided by majority.
The Constitutional and Legal Basis
The petition contends that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the ‘Commission’ as a body — not in an individual CEC. 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 within the poll panel.
The plea has sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC has reportedly acted in the name of the full Commission, as well as a declaration that ECI powers under Article 324 cannot be exercised except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework.
Objections by Election Commissioners
The petition relies on contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly recorded objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and steps reportedly 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 collective 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, filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal, and concerns over the ‘gradual centralisation’ of the electoral roll database and changes in IT work allocation.
ECI’s Position
The ECI has maintained that reported differences between Commissioners do not amount to an institutional ‘rupture’, and that internal objections and written notes are established mechanisms within a multi-member constitutional body. In a statement, the poll panel asserted that its decisions — including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise — were unanimous, and that differences raised by Commissioners form part of the normal deliberative and administrative process.
The next hearing, slated for 26 October, is expected to set the tone for how the court will evaluate the allegations of procedural overreach at one of India’s most consequential constitutional institutions.
Point of View
If it gains traction, strikes at the structural heart of India’s electoral machinery: whether a constitutional body designed as a collegium has, in practice, been reduced to a one-person office. The fact that two sitting Election Commissioners reportedly filed written objections over nearly a year — without those objections triggering corrective action — is itself the most damaging detail in the plea, and one the court will likely press the ECI to address directly. The 2023 CEC appointment law was already contested for diluting judicial oversight of the appointment process; a finding that the collective-decision mandate within that same law is being bypassed would compound the legitimacy questions around the Commission at a time when electoral credibility is already a live political battleground.
NationPress
5 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Supreme Court case against CEC Gyanesh Kumar about?
A petition before the Supreme Court challenges whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the full three-member Election Commission of India. The plea argues that Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 CEC Act require collective decision-making, and seeks a writ of quo warranto along with declaratory relief.
What did the Supreme Court order on 5 October 2026?
The bench led by CJI Surya Kant issued notice to the Centre, the ECI, and all three Election Commissioners, and sought their responses to the allegations. It declined to grant interim relief at this stage, stating it would first need authenticated information, but noted it retains the power to annul any decision later found to be unlawful.
What role do Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi play in this case?
The petition relies on written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly recorded formal objections between October 2025 and August 2026. Those objections reportedly cover decisions taken without their approval, missing agendas and minutes, unauthorised foreign travel, changes to Form 6, and concerns about centralisation of the electoral roll database.
What has the Election Commission said in response?
The ECI has maintained that reported differences between Commissioners do not amount to an institutional rupture. It stated that its decisions, including those on the Special Intensive Revision exercise, were unanimous, and that internal objections and written notes are standard mechanisms in any multi-member constitutional body.
When will the Supreme Court next hear this case?
The matter is tentatively scheduled for hearing on 26 October 2026, when the court is expected to examine the responses filed by the Centre, the ECI, and the Election Commissioners.
