A Supreme Court PIL seeks the interim suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and a declaration that Election Commission decisions cannot be taken unilaterally. The petition relies on 14 alleged objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, while seeking production and preservation of the ECI’s institutional records.
New Delhi: A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from performing the functions of his office while challenging what it describes as the alleged unilateral exercise of the Election Commission of India’s collective constitutional powers.
The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Rakesh Kumar Singh, also known as Rakesh Singh. It seeks a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other action can be issued in the name of the Election Commission unless it is supported by a decision taken unanimously or, where the Commissioners differ, by the majority.
The allegations in the PIL have not yet been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The petition itself acknowledges that the legality of each disputed action cannot be presumed merely from the objections it cites and asks the Court to call for the ECI’s original records before reaching any factual conclusion.
Quo Warranto Sought Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar
Among its principal prayers, the petition seeks a writ of quo warranto requiring Gyanesh Kumar to disclose the authority under which he allegedly acted as though the Election Commission’s collective decision-making power could be exercised by the CEC individually.
The petitioner argues that Article 324(1) vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Election Commission” as an institution. Although Article 324(3) designates the Chief Election Commissioner as the Commission’s Chairman, the plea contends that chairmanship cannot be equated with the authority of the multi-member body itself.
Pending final adjudication, the petitioner has asked the Court to restrain Kumar from exercising the functions of the CEC. It further seeks a direction that Commission business during this period be conducted through unanimous decisions of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The plea also proposes that any appointment arising from the resulting vacancy should be made on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India. Under Article 324(5), however, the CEC enjoys constitutional protection against removal except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. The request before the Court is framed as an interim suspension pending adjudication, not as a completed removal.
Article 324 And Section 18 Cited
The petition relies on Article 324 of the Constitution together with Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Section 18 provides that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocate business among the CEC and Election Commissioners through a unanimous decision. It further states that Commission business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and that any difference of opinion must be decided according to the majority view.
On this basis, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the CEC cannot possess an individual veto or independently represent a disputed step as a decision of the Election Commission.
PIL Relies On 14 Alleged Objections By Election Commissioners
The petition refers to 14 alleged objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. According to the petitioner, the objections concern actions purportedly taken in the ECI’s name without the concurrence or approval of the other two members of the three-member Commission.
A related challenge concerning the same disputed actions is pending before the Bombay High Court, which subsequently declined to grant the matter an urgent hearing.
Form 6 Changes Questioned
One of the examples cited concerns an alteration to Form 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The petition claims that the form was changed in July 2026 to require applicants to state whether they, their parents or their grandparents existed in the electoral roll prepared during the last Special Intensive Revision.
According to the plea, Joshi recorded an objection on May 16, 2026, stating that Form 6 could not lawfully be altered without amending the relevant Rules. Sandhu is stated to have concurred on May 19. The petition further refers to an August 13 noting allegedly made by Sandhu describing the change as unauthorised and calling for its immediate removal.
The Election Commission has publicly disputed the suggestion that its SIR and Form 6 decisions were unilateral. In an earlier response, the ECI maintained that the relevant decisions were unanimous and consistent with Supreme Court directions.
Concerns Over Electoral-Roll Database
The PIL also cites alleged objections concerning the centralisation and control of the electoral-roll database. It claims that Joshi raised concerns on May 29 about what he described as the gradual centralisation of the database and proposed an audit to identify whether persons other than the competent statutory authorities held credentials capable of altering it.
The petition states that Sandhu later endorsed the concern and, in an August 14 communication, allegedly recorded that state-level election officials lacked proper and complete access to the ERONet portal. On this issue, the petitioner seeks preservation and production of server logs, audit trails, access records and database-change histories.
Questions Over West Bengal SIR Appeals
Another disputed matter concerns approximately 16.10 lakh appeals said to have been filed in the Election Commission’s name before West Bengal appellate tribunals against electors whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers.
The PIL relies on an August 12 noting attributed to Sandhu, in which he allegedly asked who had authorised the filing of those appeals on behalf of the Commission. The petitioner wants the ECI to produce the approvals, authorisations and decision-making records connected with the appeals.
Judicial Inquiry And Preservation Of Records Sought
Apart from the declaratory and interim reliefs, the petitioner seeks an independent judicial inquiry commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine how the disputed actions were taken.
The petition asks for preservation of physical and electronic material, including meeting agendas, minutes, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence, work-allocation orders, IT-access records and server logs. It also seeks a direction requiring the Commission to circulate agendas before meetings, record minutes afterwards and document the authority supporting every order or communication issued in the ECI’s name.
The petition was drawn by advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through advocate-on-record Mudit Gupta.
Case: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.