A writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeks to quash 14 actions of the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, allegedly taken over the past ten months despite recorded objections by the two other Election Commissioners, raising questions about the collective functioning of the poll body.
Mumbai: A writ petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court challenging 14 administrative actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, which, the petition alleges, were taken over the past ten months despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, thereby raising questions over the collective functioning of the ECI [Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar v. Election Commission of India].
The petition, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur Bench, is at the threshold stage; it is yet to be heard, and the allegations in it are untested. The ECI’s response is not on record. The matter is expected to be mentioned before the Bench on Monday, September 28.
What the petition alleges
According to the petition, the manner in which decisions concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers were taken raises issues of statutory compliance and constitutional governance. It seeks the quashing of 14 administrative orders and actions of the ECI and the CEC which, relying on a recent report in The Indian Express, the petition states were the subject of objections recorded by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi.
The reported objections, as set out in the petition, related to matters including changes to Form 6 for new voter registration, the deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals against orders restoring voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, and the management of, and access to, the electoral-roll database. The two Commissioners are reported to have objected to certain decisions being taken without their knowledge or approval, including what they described as “unauthorised and illegal” changes to Form 6 and a gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database, and to have approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in the allocation of work concerning the IT infrastructure handling the rolls. These are matters attributed in the petition to that reporting, and are set out here as the petitioner’s contentions; they have not been adjudicated.
The reliefs sought
The petitioner contends that the alleged actions amount to a “systematic erosion of constitutional norms” governing the management of electoral rolls, affecting the fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 14 and the constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326. On that basis, the petition seeks a bouquet of reliefs: the quashing of the 14 impugned actions; the halting of the SIR process in Maharashtra; the restoration of deleted voter names; the postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved; and the constitution of an independent judicial committee to examine the alleged irregularities.
The petition further contends that, in discharging its electoral-roll functions, the ECI is required to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach so as to ensure that the country is governed democratically. Whether any of these contentions has merit, and whether the reliefs are grantable, are questions entirely for the Court, which is yet to consider the plea.
A separate plea on the Maharashtra SIR
Separately, another writ petition, filed before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi on behalf of two Mumbai businessmen, challenges the implementation of the SIR in Maharashtra. Notably, that petition expressly does not seek to stop the SIR exercise. Instead, it seeks disclosure or production of the order and the recorded reasons under which the SIR is being conducted in Maharashtra, along with transparency about its methodology and legal basis, and safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.
That petition contends that the ECI may make a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship, and that where doubt remains, the matter must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, with the electoral consequence abiding by that decision. It also alleges that, although the ECI’s Maharashtra instructions do not permit the collection of documents during enumeration, Booth Level Officers have been asking citizens to furnish “supporting documents” while receiving enumeration forms. This second petition, too, is at the threshold and is likely to be mentioned on September 28.
Why it matters
Stripped to its legal core, the first petition raises a significant, and relatively untested, question about the internal decision-making of the Election Commission of India as a multi-member body. Under Article 324 of the Constitution and the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, the Commission functions as a collegial body of the CEC and the Election Commissioners, with the law providing for the transaction of business and, where the members differ, for decision by majority. The petition’s premise, that a series of actions was taken despite recorded objections by two of the three members, squarely engages the question of how differences within the Commission are to be resolved, and whether, and to what extent, the administrative actions of the ECI in preparing and revising electoral rolls are amenable to judicial review.
These are contested and politically-sensitive matters, and it bears emphasis that they are, at this stage, only allegations in petitions that the High Court has yet to hear. The wider controversy over the SIR, the accuracy of electoral rolls, and the deletion and restoration of voters has been the subject of litigation and public debate across several States; the present pleas add the distinct dimension of the ECI’s collective functioning and the treatment of internal dissent. The ECI has not yet placed its position on record in these proceedings, and no court has made any finding on the allegations. LawChakra reports the filing and the reliefs sought, and takes no view on the underlying controversy, which the Bombay High Court will consider when the matters are taken up.
Case Title: Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar v. Election Commission of India (Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench); and a connected petition through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi (Principal Seat, Bombay High Court)
Status: Filed; to be mentioned on September 28, 2026