Hearing petitions seeking the suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the Supreme Court said it could not pass an interim order on the strength of a newspaper report, while asking the respondents to respond directly to the Court.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order on petitions seeking the suspension and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) decisions allegedly taken unilaterally, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing that a newspaper report on which the petitioners relied “may be 100 per cent correct, partially correct or partially incorrect” [Petitions seeking suspension and prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over SIR decisions].
A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard the matter. The petitions also seek an SIT inquiry into voter deletions during the SIR exercise. The allegations are the petitioners’ contentions and have not been adjudicated.
The plea for an interim order before the Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, sought an interim order to suspend the CEC or at least divest him of the authority to act as CEC, contending that the Election Commission’s functioning was contrary to the statute under which the CEC is appointed. When Justice Bagchi asked who would conduct the elections, Singh submitted that the other two Election Commissioners could.
He also urged the Court, in the interim, to restore the position in Anoop Baranwal by making the Chief Justice of India a member of the selection committee. The CJI responded that the Court needed authenticated information before it:
“We need to have some authentic information before us. Let us wait for 10 days.”
‘We cannot pass an order on that basis today’
Singh then submitted that a press release issued by the Election Commission had not denied the newspaper reports and was couched in the vaguest language, and asked that, until the next hearing, the Commission take only unanimous decisions. The CJI said:
“The newspaper report may be 100 per cent correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today.”
“But we would definitely like to have a response. Thereafter, whatever procedural requirements are necessary, we will issue them.”
The CJI added that respondent numbers 5 to 8 were being called upon to answer and that they would respond directly to the Court. When Singh sought a direction that the Commission not take any decision without a majority, calling it mandatory law, the CJI said:
“We expect that they will follow the law.”
The petitioners’ concern and the Bench’s response
Singh submitted that if the Court ultimately found the law had not been followed, the damage may already have been done, since the Court cannot undo an election. Justice Bagchi observed that notice had to be issued and that, once the respondents appeared, they would have to explain any decision that was neither by majority nor by unanimity. He asked whether the Court could conclude that very day that all the decisions were unilateral. The CJI then directed: “Issue notice.”
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, also for the petitioners, referred to the conduct of SIR in Delhi and contended that the CEC’s functioning was biased. The CJI said any modified Form 6 had not been approved by the Court, and that when the record is produced the Court would like to see who modified it. He also remarked that the prayers appeared to be “jumbled up”.
The Election Commission has publicly stated in a press note that its SIR and Form 6 decisions were unanimous. Its response before the Court is yet to be placed on record, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the allegations.
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