New Delhi, Oct 5 (IANS) : The Supreme Court will hear petitions on Monday challenging whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can single-handedly exercise powers constitutionally designated for the entire multi-member poll panel.
As per the cause list published on the official website of the apex court, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana is slated to take up the matter.
The matter was mentioned before the CJI earlier on September 29 by senior advocate Vikas Singh, following which the CJI said: “List it next week.”
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.
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. It further relies 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, with matters on which there is no unanimity to be decided by majority.
The plea has relied upon contemporaneous written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly 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 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.
