The Supreme Court on Monday sought replies from the Central government, the Election Commision of India (ECI) and others in a petition alleging that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (CEC) took decisions unilaterally without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners.

The replies of Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, as well as ECI Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, have also been sought.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed,

"We have to issue notice. After notice, if they come and the reports show that an Election Commission decision was neither by majority nor by unanimity, they will have to explain those decisions."

The plea sought a writ of quo warranto asking the CEC to explain under what authority he has acted and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission as a body.

The ECI comprises the CEC and two ECs. Whenever there is no unanimity among the three, decisions have to be arrived at based on majority. However, according to recent reports by the Indian Express, the ECI took various decisions despite two ECs not agreeing to the same.

The petition before the Court, filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh, alleged “progressive centralisation” of power, absence/delay of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and filing of appeals without the two Election Commissioners’ knowledge or approval.

The petition highlighted 14 objections recorded by the two ECs between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026 against the steps taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.

"If the power constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi member body can, in fact or in substance, be exercised by one office within it without the participation the Constitution and the 2023 Act require, then decisions that determine who is on the electoral roll, and therefore who may vote, raise a serious constitutional question as to whether such decisions are being taken by the constitutional authority the Constitution created for that purpose," the plea said.

If it is found that the CEC exercised, or continues to exercise, such collective authority without a decision of the Commission taken in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act, then such exercise of authority should be declared invalid, the plea sought.

The plea also sought a declaration that Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and all actions, decisions, directions and consequential measures undertaken pursuant to SIR be declared void ab initio and without lawful authority.

The plea was drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through Advocate Mudit Gupta.

Appearing for the petitioner today, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also highlighted Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which grants immunity to the CEC even after he retires. Singh argued,

"This was not there in the earlier Act. Section 16 makes it even more important because of the kind of authority that the statute has given to the Chief Election Commissioner."

CJI Kant replied,

"Protection while in office is always understood."

Singh, however, pointed out,

"But it says "is or was". So even after he demits office. This kind of protection is unheard of for any other constitutional functionary. A Prime Minister does not have this protection."

"Not even judges," said Justice Bagchi.

Singh agreed, clarifying that he was not challenging Section 16 at present.

Instead, he sought an interim order to suspend the CEC immediately, or divest him of the authority to act as CEC and allow the other two Election Commissioners to act in his stead.

"In the interim, restore the Anoop Baranwal position and let the Chief Justice of India be a member of the selection committee. We are dealing with a very grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy. Our democracy is known across the world for the manner in which we conduct elections. For 76 years, the Election Commission has commanded respect. Individual decisions may have been questioned, but we are now in a situation where the very CEC, as a constitutional authority, is acting in a manner completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed. Some interim order will be required. Otherwise, this will continue," he said.

The CJI replied,

"We have to have some authentic information before us. Let us wait for 10 days."

On the question of annulling decisions by the ECI that are being called into question, the Court said,

"If there is anything wrong with the decisions, we can always annul them. The 1993 amendment as well as the 2023 Act talk about both things. The procedure for transaction of business is to be decided unanimously, while functioning can be by majority. They are expected to first take a decision unanimously. If there is no unanimity, then, as rightly pointed out, it can be decided by majority."

Singh then pointed out that the ECI has not addressed the Indian Express report, but issued a press release "in the vaguest possible language".

CJI Kant then 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."