Petitions question whether the Chief Election Commissioner can exercise powers vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member constitutional body
New Delhi, Oct 2026 : The Supreme Court will hear petitions on Monday challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioning whether powers constitutionally vested in the Election Commission can be exercised by the CEC without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana is scheduled to hear the matter, according to the Supreme Court’s cause list.
The matter was mentioned before the CJI on September 29 by senior advocate Vikas Singh, following which the court agreed to list it the following week. The petitions raise questions about the collective decision-making framework of the Election Commission of India (ECI), as well as the authority under which certain decisions were allegedly taken in the name of the poll panel.
One of the petitions argues that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the “Commission”, rather than in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It also 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 refers to written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petition, the two commissioners recorded objections on at least 14 occasions between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning decisions and actions allegedly taken without their approval.
The issues cited in the petition include communications and orders allegedly issued without the approval of the full Commission, the absence of agendas before and minutes after certain meetings, foreign travel allegedly undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to electoral-roll databases and the filing of 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 allocation of work within the Election Commission’s information technology establishment. Recent reporting has also highlighted concerns relating to access to ERONet and ECINet databases.
The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto, asking the court to examine under what authority the CEC allegedly exercised powers that, according to the plea, belong collectively to the Election Commission. It also seeks directions to ensure compliance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the poll panel.
Another petition before the court has sought an independent inquiry or a Special Investigation Team into allegations concerning decisions allegedly taken without full Commission concurrence, and has challenged the legality of the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Election Commission has maintained that differences of opinion among members do not amount to an institutional breakdown. In its response to reports about the objections, the ECI acknowledged the existence of the notes but described them as part of the decision-making process and maintained that decisions taken during the period were unanimous.
The Supreme Court’s hearing will therefore bring into focus the constitutional and statutory framework governing the functioning of the multi-member Election Commission and the scope of the CEC’s authority as its chairman.
