The Supreme Court issued notice on petitions seeking the suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and an SIT probe into SIR voter deletions, but declined to pass an interim order at the first hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on petitions seeking the suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) decisions allegedly taken unilaterally, and an SIT inquiry into voter deletions during the exercise, but did not grant interim relief [Petitions seeking suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over SIR decisions].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter. The allegations are the petitioners’ contentions and are untested; the Court has expressed no view on their merits.
The statutory argument
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh took the Court through the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, in comparison with the 1991 Act. He relied on Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the original Act, contending that the Commission may regulate the procedure for transaction of its business only by unanimous decision, while a matter may otherwise be decided by majority.
He submitted that the 2023 Act, which supersedes the appointment mechanism considered in Anoop Baranwal and is separately under challenge, adds Section 16, which bars courts from entertaining civil or criminal proceedings against a CEC or Election Commissioner for acts done in the discharge of official duties. He contended this protection was absent in the earlier Act and elevates the CEC higher than Supreme Court judges. Justice Bagchi observed that such protection is perhaps available only to the President and does not extend even to judges.
The interim prayers
Singh sought an interim order to suspend the CEC or divest him of the authority to act as CEC, and, failing that, a direction that the Commission take only unanimous decisions until the next hearing, or that the Chief Justice of India be made a member of the selection committee in the interim. Asked by Justice Bagchi who would conduct the elections, he said the other two Election Commissioners could.
He also submitted that an electoral roll vitiated by a unilateral decision cannot be undone after an election, and pointed to an Election Commission press release which, he said, had not denied the newspaper reports. The CJI said the Court needed authenticated information, that it could not pass an order on the basis of a newspaper report, and that it expected the respondents to follow the law. Respondent numbers 5 to 8 were called upon to respond directly to the Court.
Supreme Court notice issued on CEC Gyanesh Kumar suspension pleas
Justice Bagchi observed that on notice, if the reports showed that a decision was neither by majority nor by unanimity, the respondents would have to explain it, and asked whether the Court could conclude that very day that all decisions were unilateral. The CJI directed, “Issue notice.” Singh asked for a one-week notice so that the matter could come up early; the CJI had earlier suggested waiting for 10 days. The next date was not available from the hearing record at the time of writing.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy contended that the CEC’s functioning was biased, referring to SIR in Delhi. The CJI said any modified Form 6 had not been approved by the Court and that the Court would like to see who modified it once the record is produced, adding that the prayers appeared to be “jumbled up”. The Election Commission has publicly stated that its SIR and Form 6 decisions were unanimous; its response to the petitions is yet to be placed before the Court.
Case: Petitions seeking suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over SIR decisions (case title and number not available)
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Menaka Guruswamy