The Supreme Court has agreed to give an early listing to a petition seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from discharging the functions of his office during the pendency of the case and a declaration that powers vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be exercised unilaterally by its Chairman.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has allowed an early listing of a writ petition questioning the alleged unilateral exercise of the Election Commission of India’s collective constitutional powers by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and seeking his interim suspension [Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, agreed to the request when Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter, and said that it would be listed next week. The petition has been registered as Diary No. 60267 of 2026.
Singh submitted that the controversy raises a serious institutional issue because the Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional body. He said, “The very purpose of having a multi-member Commission is that decisions are taken unanimously, or by majority.” He further submitted that questions had arisen over whether the Commission itself had authorised the Special Intensive Revision exercise and related measures.
Responding to the submission, the CJI-led Bench observed: “If the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, it’s a serious issue.” The Court then agreed to list the matter early. No finding on the merits of the allegations has been returned at this stage.
Petition invokes Article 324 and Section 18
The Article 32 petition has been filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh against the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, the CEC and other officials. Its central case is that Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission as an institution, while Article 324(3) makes the Chief Election Commissioner the Chairman of the Commission when other Election Commissioners are appointed.
The petitioner also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The provision requires the Commission’s business to be transacted unanimously as far as possible and provides that a difference of opinion must be decided according to the majority view.
On that basis, the plea seeks a declaration that no order, communication, direction, appeal or other act may be represented as an act of the ECI unless it follows a decision taken unanimously or, in case of disagreement, by majority.
Fourteen alleged objections by two Election Commissioners
The petition claims that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 concerning actions allegedly undertaken without the approval of the full Commission.
It further alleges that agendas were not regularly circulated before meetings and minutes were not issued afterwards for more than a year. According to the petitioner, these circumstances require the production of the Commission’s primary records so the Court can determine whether the disputed actions were duly authorised.
The plea relies, among other authorities, on the Supreme Court’s decisions in S.S. Dhanoa, T.N. Seshan and Anoop Baranwal to argue that the CEC is not institutionally superior to the other Election Commissioners in the transaction of the Commission’s business.
Form 6, electoral-roll database and West Bengal appeals
Among the actions questioned is an alleged substantive change made to Form 6 in July 2026. The petition asserts that the change introduced a disputed field even though objections had been raised that such an alteration required an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The petitioner has also challenged the alleged centralisation of access to the ERONet/ECINet electoral-roll database. It is contended that software permissions or administrative directions cannot displace the statutory functions of Electoral Registration Officers under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the 1960 Rules.
A further challenge concerns appeals said to have been filed in the ECI’s name before appellate tribunals in West Bengal. The petition asks the Court to call for the underlying authorisations and to set aside any such action if the record shows that it was not approved by the Commission in accordance with Section 18.
Reliefs sought before the Supreme Court
The principal prayers include a writ of quo warranto calling upon the CEC to show the authority under which he allegedly acted as though entitled individually to exercise the Commission’s collective powers. The petitioner has also sought directions requiring regular circulation of meeting agendas and minutes, recording of work allocation and documentation of authorisation for every act issued in the Commission’s name.
The plea asks for production and preservation of minutes, agendas, approvals, file notings, delegation orders, IT-access records, server logs, audit trails and database-change histories concerning Form 6, the SIR, ERONet/ECINet and the West Bengal appeals.
It also seeks to have the disputed alteration to Form 6, the questioned IT work-allocation order and any unauthorised West Bengal appeal authorisation quashed. Another prayer asks the Court to declare the SIR and consequential action void for alleged absence of lawful authority. These are reliefs claimed by the petitioner and have not yet been adjudicated.
If the primary record discloses that material electoral-roll or IT decisions were taken without a Commission decision, the petitioner has sought an independent judicial inquiry commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by experts in cybersecurity, information technology and electoral administration.
CEC’s suspension sought as interim measure
As interim relief, the petition seeks a direction that Gyanesh Kumar should not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner while the case remains pending. It asks that, during that period, Commission business be transacted through unanimous decisions of the two Election Commissioners and that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee including the CJI.
The interim prayers also seek preservation of physical and electronic records from October 1, 2025 onwards, protection against further substantive changes to Form 6, and safeguards against irreversible alterations to electoral-roll data solely pursuant to the SIR.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India and Others [Diary No. 60267 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter for the petitioner. The petition was drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed by Advocate-on-Record Mudit Gupta.