Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Over ECI Functioning, with the Chief Justice of India’s bench giving the petitioners two weeks to respond to the Election Commission’s counter-affidavit and listing the batch of petitions on November 17.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) issued notice on a batch of petitions questioning the functioning and decision-making process of the Election Commission of India (ECI), allowed the petitioners two weeks to file a rejoinder to the Commission’s counter-affidavit, and listed the matter next on November 17 [Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others].
The petitions were taken up by a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh sought time to file a rejoinder, and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the Commission. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara questioned the maintainability of the petitions.
What happened in Court
Ms Guruswamy submitted that the Commission’s reply accepted several of the charges the petitioners were making and urged the Court to issue notice. She also alleged that the online Form 6, used to register new voters, had been altered and that a press note had claimed the Supreme Court had authorised those changes. The Chief Justice said the Court was issuing notice and added that it would examine the matter.
Mr Maninder Singh, appearing for the Commission, objected to the language used in the submissions, saying the rhetoric could serve another purpose and might not be permitted. Mr Vikas Singh asked for one week to file a rejoinder, saying substantial material had to be placed on record. The Court allowed two weeks instead. The Commission may rely on the same counter-affidavit in the other petitions raising the issue, or file an additional affidavit in them.
The Court did not rule on the merits of any allegation, and no interim order was passed.
How the petitions reached the Court
The petitions allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who are alleged to have recorded objections to a number of SIR-related decisions between October 2025 and August 2026. One petitioner seeks a declaration that the Commission, as a multi-member body, cannot act unilaterally through the Chief Election Commissioner and asks for scrutiny of the Commission’s records, while another seeks an independent inquiry into 14 decisions he describes as unilateral.
A joint petition by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders raises similar concerns. These are the petitioners’ allegations and have not been tested.
The Commission’s stand
In its counter-affidavit, filed a day before the hearing, the Commission said its three SIR orders, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025 and May 14, 2026, were all passed unanimously. It denied that the Chief Election Commissioner acted unilaterally and said Form 6 was not amended by those orders. It also said that a query or note recorded by a Commissioner on a file is not by itself a decision of the Commission under the 2023 Act, that urgent matters are approved electronically with the approval recorded on file later, and that the online application will be split into two parts under an October 21, 2026 decision.
On maintainability, the Commission argued that the petition rests on an unverified newspaper report.
The legal position
The Election Commission’s composition and powers flow from Article 324 of the Constitution, and the service conditions and transaction of business of the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners are now governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The Commission’s affidavit also relies on Article 324(5), under which the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge, to argue that the prayer to restrain him is not maintainable. The Court will have to examine these contentions after the rejoinder is filed.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 1246/2026, heard with connected petitions
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2026
Next Date: November 17, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy for MP Dola Sen; Senior Advocate Vikas Singh; Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for the Election Commission of India; Advocate Mathews Nedumpara