New Delhi, October 5, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and all three Election Commissioners on a plea questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers vested in the multi-member poll panel.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notices after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, alleged that the functioning of the ECI was contrary to the statutory framework governing the constitutional body.
Singh urged the court to consider interim measures, including a direction that ECI decisions be taken unanimously until the next hearing. The Bench, however, noted that the Commissioners were expected to deliberate collectively and that, where unanimity was not reached, decisions would be taken by majority.
The court also sought authenticated information before considering the allegations, observing that any decision could subsequently be annulled if found to be unlawful.
“News reports may be fully or partially correct. We will like their response,” the Bench said, indicating that it would hear the ECI before examining whether the applicable legal framework had been followed.
The plea relies on Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission”, and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, concerning collective decision-making.
It refers to written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026. According to the petition, the documents raise objections over communications and orders allegedly issued without the Commission’s approval, meeting procedures, foreign travel, changes to Form 6, access to electoral-roll data and appeals before tribunals in West Bengal.
The petition also raises concerns over what it describes as the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and changes in the work allocation of the ECI’s IT establishment.
The petitioner has sought directions to ensure that powers under Article 324 are exercised in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework and has sought production and preservation of relevant records.
The matter is tentatively listed for further hearing on October 26, according to the Supreme Court’s case status.
The ECI, meanwhile, has maintained that reported differences among the Commissioners do not constitute an institutional “rupture”. It has said that internal objections and written notes are part of the deliberative process within a multi-member constitutional body and maintained that its decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, were unanimous.
FOLLOW NOW
