New Delhi [India], September 29 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a plea challenging the manner in which the Election Commission of India (ECI) is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body were being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for early listing of the case, saying the statutory scheme requires decisions of the multi-member Commission to be unanimous or by majority.
Filed by Bihar-based petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32, the plea has sought a direction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as Chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.
The petition relied on at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
The objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the two Commissioners.
A key grievance concerns the alteration of Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Commissioner Joshi had allegedly objected that the form could not be changed to require SIR-linked disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, an objection subsequently endorsed by Sandhu.
The disputed field was nevertheless introduced in July 2026, while Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised and illegal”.
The petition also raised concerns over the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet/ECINet by statutory field-level authorities. Joshi had proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the authority of the ECI’s Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. Sandhu allegedly questioned who had authorised the filing of the appeals and under what authority.
The petitioner has argued that Article 324 vests electoral powers in the “Election Commission” and not the CEC individually. It relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1995 Constitution bench judgment in TN Seshan v/s Union of India, which recognised the substantive decision-making role of Election Commissioners in a multi-member Commission.
The plea further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where the members differ, decided by majority.
Seeking examination of the Commission’s primary records, including agendas, minutes, approval sheets, file notings, work-allocation orders and IT-access records, the petitioner has said the allegations should not be treated as conclusively establishing illegality merely on the basis of media reports. Rather, the records should be produced to determine whether the disputed actions were authorised in accordance with Article 324 and Section 18.
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, a direction against further substantive alteration of Form 6, and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication. The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and requiring the Commission’s business to be transacted by the other two Commissioners.
The main prayer sought a declaration that the powers under Article 324 must be exercised by the ECI as a multi-member body in accordance with Section 18, and that communications, orders, directions or appeals cannot be issued in the name of the Commission without a decision taken unanimously or, where necessary, by majority. (ANI)
Related reading
