New Delhi, Sep 28 (IANS) : A fresh petition has been moved before the Supreme Court challenging the manner in which the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) are being exercised and questioning whether its Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the multi-member poll panel.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 by public-spirited citizen Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh, seeks a declaration enforcing the collective decision-making framework governing the poll body and a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which CEC Gyanesh Kumar has reportedly acted in the name of the ECI.
The petition contends that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission” and not in an individual Chief Election Commissioner, while Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 provides for collective decision-making, with matters on which there is no unanimity to be decided by majority.
“This petition concerns not the fortunes of any individual constitutional functionary, but the constitutional identity of the Election Commission of India (ECI) itself,” the plea said.
The petitioner has relied upon contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who recorded at least 14 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 the filing of appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.
The plea also refers to concerns allegedly 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.
However, the petition makes clear that it is not asking the Supreme Court to conclusively determine at the first instance whether each of the disputed steps was actually taken without lawful authority. “The petitioner does not ask this Hon’ble Court to resolve, as a matter of first instance, whether each of these disputed steps was in fact taken without lawful Commission authority,” the plea said.
It added that the issue would depend upon primary records, including “minutes, file notings, approval sheets and orders”, which, according to the petition, have not been placed in the public domain.
The petitioner has sought directions for the production of such records and 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 poll panel.
The plea also seeks declaratory and mandatory directions to ensure compliance with the collective decision-making framework, besides production and preservation of relevant records, including minutes, file notings, approval sheets and orders concerning the disputed decisions.
Meanwhile, the ECI, in response to the controversy surrounding the reported objections, has maintained that decisions taken by the poll body, including those relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), were unanimous and that the issues raised by the Commissioners were part of the normal deliberative and administrative process.
