Election Commission row: Plea in Supreme Court alleges unilateral decision-making by CEC Gyanesh Kumar

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court alleging that decisions are being taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar (CEC) in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The plea has 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 Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners.

Currently, Gyanesh Kumar serves as CEC while Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the 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 Elections Commissioners not agreeing to the same.

The petition before the Court, filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh, has 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 has highlighted that as per the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the business of the ECI shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and where the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, the matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.

However, between October 28, 2025 and August 14, 2026, the two Elections Commissioners had reportedly raised least fourteen distinct objections to steps taken in the name of the ECI without the ECI's 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 states.

The plea has sought a writ Quo Warranto asking the CEC's explanation to such decisions.

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 has sought.

The plea has 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.