Key Points:
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the plea filed against CEC Gyanesh Kumar next week.
The Petition has been filed by an individual named, Rakesh Kumar Singh, drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through Advocate on Record Mudit Gupta.
The petition alleges the irregularities and unilateral decision-making in the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country.
AMID THE INTENSIFYING ALLEGATIONS against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, expressed its agreement to hear the filed petition next week. The petition has been filed against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, alleging the irregularities and unilateral decision-making in the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country.
The plea was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.
Allegations against the Election commission’s actions have been flagged for a long time, especially after the SIR process in West Bengal, which brought about serious issues in terms of mass deletion, irregular appellate tribunals and the increasingly polarized policy-making by the present West-Bengal government.
The Petition has been filed by an individual named, Rakesh Kumar Singh, drawn by Advocate Sudeep Chandra and filed through Advocate on Record Mudit Gupta. Stating the plea before the CJI, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh said, “The purpose of having a multi-member Commission was that, and the statute says so, that it has to be a decision unanimously or by majority.
Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether there was a decision of the Election Commission for this entire exercise of special intensive revision. Because if the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then this... What the Court has also decided is on the basis that it is a Commission's decision. So it is a serious issue,” reported Bar and Bench.
Responding to the cited plea, CJI Surya Kant agreed to hear it in the coming week.
According to Bar and Bench, the petition invokes the writ of Quo Warranto, asking Gyanesh Kumar to explain the grounds on which he has taken these actions, or continues to do so, in a manner that portrays individual entitlement over the collective decision-making body. Simply put, the petition asks how Gyanesh Kumar acted individually, while Article 324 of the Indian Constitution recognizes and vests power to the EC as a collective body.
Quo Warranto is a writ petition—under Article 32 of the Constitution—which “inquires into the legality of a person's claim to a public office.”
The entire fiasco originated after an investigative report by Indian Express claimed that CEC Gyanesh Kumar has been making decisions unilaterally, as the other two Election Commissioners have on-record produced 14 objections to the Election Commission’s (EC) due course of action. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the two election commissioners.
The petition filed by Rakesh Singh alleged the instances of “progressive centralization” of power, absence or delay of agendas and minutes, changes to electoral-roll processes and filing of appeals without the two commissioners’ knowledge or approval.
The plea by invoking the writ of Quo Warranto, thereby, asks for an explanation for the CEC’s actions. It further states that, if the CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, exercised or continues to exercise collective authority without a decision of the commission in accordance to section 18 of the 2023 Act, then the exercise of such authority ought to be declared invalid.
The 2023 Act is the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, which details the process, appointment, salary, tenure and removal of the EC’s of India.
The existing rage against the election commission's irregularities in the SIR process was largely bolstered by the investigative report published by Indian Express on September 23, 2026. The report stated the 14 instances where the two Election Commissioners’ had flagged their concerns over the EC’s SIR process in the Country. This ranged from the Form 6, to the issues of Centralization-decentralization of data, among others.
The report directly states how CEC Gyanesh Kumar unilaterally took the major decisions—ones which had been guiding the SIR process in the country. The SIR process in Bengal was a major watershed moment, when the concerns of mass deletion, disenfranchisement and potential biases were flagged by opposition parties, research institutes and other social-civil society workers.
The criticisms acquired some weight after an RTI revealed the condition of the post-poll appellate tribunals for re-consideration of names in Bengal. According to the RTI of the 38 lakh total appeals, 31 lakh were for challenging the inclusion to the SIR list. On top of that, of the total 82,782 disposed appeals, 75,443 have been added back to the list. This has been flagged as a serious irregularity. It means that those names added to the list now, were the ones who did not vote in the 2026 assembly polls in Bengal.
Furthermore, the issues related to the Form 6, names of voters in Goa, also added to the uproar against Gyanesh Kumar. The Election Commission, however, responded to the claims made by the Indian Express report, by stating that the 14 letters were discussions than disagreements.
"Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution," the EC said in a press release signed by Deputy Director P Pawan. Additionally, it also laid out a list of regulations to subtly address the counter-points being stated by the Indian Express, other media reports and opposition voices.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store