Full Breakdown
Supreme Court to Hear Petition Over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s Alleged Unilateral Decisions
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court listed a public-interest litigation challenging whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar acted without the required unanimous or majority approval of Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi. The petition seeks Kumar’s suspension and a declaration that decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls are void if not collegially authorized.
Background & Context
The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a three-member constitutional body. Under Article 324 and the 2023 Chief Election Commissioner Act, decisions must be unanimous or, failing that, by majority. Launched in June 2025, the SIR aims to delete ineligible entries and has reportedly removed 13 crore voters, prompting concerns about disenfranchisement.
Timeline
- March 14 2024 – Kumar appointed Election Commissioner.
- February 17 2025 – Kumar became CEC (term until Jan 26 2029).
- May 7 2024 – Video shows police forcing Muslim voters out of polling stations in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh.
- August 17 2025 – Kumar denies “vote-theft” allegations at a press conference.
- Oct 28 2025 – Aug 14 2026 – Sandhu and Joshi record at least 14 written objections to SIR actions.
- May 16 2026 – Joshi objects to an amendment of Form 6; May 19 – Sandhu concurs.
- March 12 2026 – Opposition parties submit a parliamentary notice alleging partisan conduct.
- April 24 2026 – Second impeachment notice filed against Kumar.
- Sept 24 2026 – Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi calls for Kumar’s resignation.
- Sept 29 2026 – Supreme Court lists the petition for hearing.
Data & Statistics
- 14 documented objections by the two Commissioners over ten months.
- 13 crore voters removed or flagged during SIR.
- The petition cites the objection period Oct 28 2025 – Aug 14 2026.
Official Statements & Responses
- Chief Justice Surya Kant directed that the matter be listed for hearing.
- The Election Commission maintains that all SIR decisions were unanimous, describing internal differences as “a normal part of deliberations” and asserting that the letters from Sandhu and Joshi concerned an officer on deputation, not policy.
- The petition argues that Kumar acted as if he alone possessed the authority vested by Article 324, contrary to constitutional design.
Criticism & Opposition
On-the-Ground Reports
Voter Bano, 70, recounted being beaten by a policeman on May 7 2024, leaving a swollen cheek and bruised knee. “It was a male policeman who beat me,” she said.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Petition claim: At least 14 SIR decisions were taken without Sandhu’s and Joshi’s knowledge or approval, violating the unanimity/majority rule.
- EC claim: All decisions were unanimous; the letters pertained only to an officer on deputation.
- The petition seeks preservation of minutes, agendas, server logs, and other records from Oct 1 2025 onward to verify the decision-making process.