The Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur Bench has refused to grant an urgent hearing to a petition challenging 14 actions attributed to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, which were allegedly taken despite objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kolhapur: The Bombay High Court on Monday declined to urgently hear a writ petition questioning 14 administrative orders and actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, which the petitioners allege were taken despite objections by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi [Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.].
The petition was mentioned before the Kolhapur Bench for urgent consideration. The Court, however, refused to accord it urgent hearing. The refusal concerns only the request for priority listing: the petition has not been dismissed, and the High Court has not expressed any opinion on the correctness of the allegations or the legality of the impugned actions.
The plea, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode, challenges decisions concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, deletion and restoration of voters’ names, access to the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers. It also questions aspects of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Maharashtra.
Court declines request for urgent listing
The petitioners had sought urgent hearing after moving the High Court last week. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote declined the request on September 28.
Procedurally, refusal to grant urgency does not determine the maintainability or merits of a petition. It means only that the Court was not persuaded to take up the matter on an accelerated basis. The plea can still be listed and heard in the ordinary course, when the respondents may be called upon to answer the allegations.
At this stage, the ECI and the three Commissioners have not placed their responses to the petition on record, and none of the allegations has been adjudicated.
What the petition alleges
The petition has been filed by Maharashtra residents Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar, Gaurav Suryakant Nakharekar, Aadesh Shashikant Bhatkar and Smitali Nilesh Narvekar. It relies upon published reports stating that Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi raised objections on at least 14 occasions to decisions and administrative processes undertaken by the Commission.
According to the plea, the reported disagreements concerned matters including changes to Form 6 used for new voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process, the electoral-roll database and the allocation of responsibilities relating to the ECI’s information-technology infrastructure.
The petitioners contend that actions issued in the name of the Commission could not have been treated as valid collective decisions if the other two members of the three-member body had recorded unresolved objections. They have invoked the constitutional status of the ECI under Article 324 and the statutory framework governing the Commission’s transaction of business.
These remain the petitioners’ allegations. The High Court has not accepted the factual premise that the impugned decisions were taken unilaterally, and the respondents have not yet been heard.
Reliefs sought against ECI actions and Maharashtra SIR
The petition seeks the quashing of the 14 impugned actions, restoration of voters whose names were allegedly deleted during the recent revision of Maharashtra’s electoral rolls and suspension of the SIR exercise in the State.
It also seeks postponement of forthcoming Assembly elections in States where the SIR was conducted until fresh electoral rolls, allegedly compliant with the governing law, are prepared and approved. Another prayer asks for an independent judicial committee headed by a retired High Court judge to examine the alleged irregularities.
The petitioners have relied on Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution, arguing that the alleged irregularities affect equal treatment and the constitutional framework of adult suffrage. Whether these provisions support the reliefs sought will be examined only if and when the matter is taken up on merits.
ECI says key decisions were unanimous
Following reports about differences within the Commission, the ECI issued a press note stating that its decisions on SIR and Form 6 were unanimous and that the SIR framework had been considered by the Supreme Court. It also announced a review of ECINet and certain internal governance measures.
That public response is relevant background but is not yet a pleading before the Bombay High Court in this case. The judicial record will depend on the affidavits and documents formally placed before the Bench.
The legal question over collective decision-making
The Election Commission functions as a multi-member constitutional body. The governing statutory scheme requires its business to be transacted collectively and provides a mechanism for deciding matters by majority when the CEC and Election Commissioners differ.
The petition therefore raises two distinct questions: first, whether the reported objections accurately reflect formal disagreement within the Commission; and second, if they do, whether the challenged actions were nevertheless approved through the procedure prescribed for resolving such differences.
Those questions cannot be answered merely from reports of internal correspondence. They will require the Court to examine the original files, the nature of the objections, the manner in which the decisions were approved and the legal character of each challenged action.
Why it matters
The immediate order is narrow: the High Court has refused only an expedited hearing. It would therefore be incorrect to describe the development as judicial approval of the ECI’s actions or rejection of the petitioners’ allegations.
The underlying case is nevertheless significant because it seeks judicial scrutiny of how disagreement within a three-member constitutional commission is recorded and resolved. If the matter proceeds, the Court may have to distinguish between internal administrative objections, formal dissent on a decision and a valid majority determination under the governing statute.
For now, the petition remains pending, the respondents’ case is awaited, and no finding has been returned against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, or the Election Commission of India.
Case Title: Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Forum: Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench
Bench: Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote
Status: Request for urgent hearing declined on September 28, 2026; petition remains pending