Supreme Court notice to ECI, Centre on plea challenging decisions taken by CEC-led poll panel

The Bench said the decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority and that it presumed that this is how all decisions were taken

Updated - October 05, 2026 02:44 pm IST - New Delhi

Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: S. Subramanium

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) issued notice to the Election Commission (ECI) and the Centre seeking responses in a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar took decisions allegedly without the approval of two Election Commissioners.

Also Read: Protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar updated on October 5

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh and issued the notice.

The Bench said the decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority, and that it presumed that this is how all decisions were taken.

Also Read: When Election Commission was rocked by internal disputes | Explained

The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, urged the top court to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the ECI as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh said the 2023 Act expands the ambit of immunity from legal action in favour of the CEC. “The credibility of the ECI is so undermined that citizens are not feeling safe,” said the senior advocate. He said that only the procedure for the transaction of business within the Election Commission should be unanimous, but decisions can be taken by majority.

Justice J. Joymalya Bagchi said that even judges are not given the protection given to the CEC in Section 16 of the 2023 Act. Under Section 16, the CEC is protected from legal action even after demitting office.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh urged the immediate suspension of the CEC, suggesting that the other two Election Commissioners fill in. Judge Bagchi, in response, said that petitions have to be filed with an eye on the working of the Constitution.

Mr. Singh urged interim relief, or he warned that the “country will burn”. “Till the Supreme Court finally decides, let the Election Commission take decisions unanimously. Put it in an order,” he said. “In the meantime, ensure that the CEC does not take any decision unilaterally.”

CJI Surya Kant said that the allegations were just newspaper reports. Senior Advocate Singh said that the ECI issued a press release and did not deny the news reports.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the petitioners, issued a notice to the Central Government and the Election Commission.

"Direct that respondent No.3 [CEC] shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 [Sukhbir Singh Sandhu] and 5 [Vivek Joshi]; and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea stated.

The Supreme Court Bench heard a second petition against the CEC filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petition has sought the Constitution of an independent, high-powered Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired apex court judge to probe allegations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea seeks an investigation that must encompass, among others, an end-to-end audit of the Election Commission databases and probe the institutional circumstances under which 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States/Union Territories under the Special Intensive Revision. It stated that Gyanesh Kumar, in light of the allegations, would be divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity; the CEC remains directly accountable under the law — subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an “ordinary accused”.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for Mr. Tripathi, said the actions of the CEC should at least be called biased. “Deletions of voters have been made in the largest democracy,” she said. “We have grown up with free and fair elections; that is not the case now. I stand by every prayer I have made in the petition.”