New Delhi, Oct 5 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea challenging the manner in which the powers of the poll panel are being exercised and questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member poll body.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also sought responses from the three Election Commissioners after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the credibility of the ECI had been undermined and that the CEC was acting contrary to the statutory framework governing the poll body.
Vikas Singh contended that some interim measures were required, arguing that the present functioning of the ECI had left citizens feeling unsafe. “Today, the very CEC as a constitutional authority is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statute under which he is appointed,” the senior counsel submitted.
However, the CJI Kant-led Bench said that the top court would first require authenticated information on the allegations, stating that it could annul any decision if it is subsequently found to be unlawful.
“Let’s first have authenticated information on that (the allegations). We can always annul any decision,” the Supreme Court said.
Singh alternatively urged the apex court to direct that, until the next date of hearing, decisions of the ECI should be taken only unanimously. However, the CJI Kant-led Bench said that the Commissioners were expected to take unanimous decisions and, in the absence of unanimity, the matter was required to be decided by majority.
It also cautioned that the petitioner was relying on a news report and said that it would like to hear the ECI’s response. “News reports may be fully or partially correct. We will like their response,” the apex court said, adding that it would seek responses from the concerned respondents and examine whether the law had been followed.
As per the case status reflected on the official website of the apex court, the matter is tentatively listed for hearing on October 26. The plea seeks enforcement of the collective decision-making framework governing the ECI and a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC has reportedly acted in the name of the poll panel.
It contends that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission” and not in an individual CEC, while relying on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides for collective decision-making.
The plea has relied on contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly recorded objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval.
The objections, as detailed in the petition, relate to communications and orders allegedly issued without the poll body’s approval, the absence of agendas before and minutes after meetings, foreign travel undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral roll database and filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.
The plea also refers to concerns reportedly raised by the two Election Commissioners over the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database”, and changes in the work allocation of the poll body’s IT establishment.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the poll body except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the Commission.
The plea also seeks declaratory and mandatory directions to ensure compliance with the collective decision-making framework, besides production and preservation of relevant records concerning the disputed decisions.
Meanwhile, the ECI has maintained that the reported differences between the Commissioners do not amount to an institutional “rupture” and that internal objections and written notes are established mechanisms in a multi-member constitutional body.
In a statement, the poll panel has also said that its decisions, including those relating to the SIR exercise, were unanimous and that differences raised by Commissioners form part of the normal deliberative and administrative process.
