ECI-SIR Row: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an interim order on a plea seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that he took unilateral decisions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), without the consensus of the two Election Commissioners, Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.
However, a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana, said that if the top court found that any decision was taken without unanimity, it would reconsider or recall those orders, saying that Election Commission decisions must be unanimous or by majority.
Issuing notices to the Centre and the Election Commission, seeking their responses within a week, the top court said, “After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back.”
The plea urged the apex court to determine whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
The plea was filed in light of an Indian Express report, which claimed that the poll body took many decisions regarding the SIR without the consent of the two Election Commissioners, and despite their objections.
What Happened During The Hearing?
During the hearing, senior advocate Menaka Goswamy, appearing for the petitioner, called the CEC “biased” and said, “In Delhi, it is 30 per cent of the electorate. In Bengal, it was 25 per cent of the electorate. 16 lakh appeals are pending before the appellate tribunal. Those persons have already been excluded from one election cycle. Now there is another election cycle.”
Responding to Goswamy, CJI Surya Kant asked her about her prayers in the plea, to which she responded, “Yes, and I stand by those prayers. Where is the infirmity in those prayers? When the franchise rights of the world’s largest democracy are under threat and SIR is being imposed, and the Chief Election Commissioner’s functioning is biased, to say the least.”
Goswamy further raked up the 2023 law, which grants immunity to the CEC against civil and criminal proceedings for actions or words spoken while discharging their official duties.
“This is not supposed to be State-specific. The State is only being used as an illustration. We are highlighting the most recent elections. It concerns the national functioning of the CEC and the Election Commissioners, the institution of the Election Commission,” Goswamy said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
“That illegality is being protected by an unconstitutional law. What is the sanction for this kind of biased conduct? Is this discharge of official duty? I ask myself. We have grown up with free and fair elections in this country. They do not exist today. I stand by these prayers, each and every one of them. It is a national problem,” she argued.
Goswamy further demanded a probe by a judicial inquiry commission or a special investigation team (SIT) into the deletion of over 13 crore voters during the Special Intensive Revision of the voter list.
What The Plea Demanded?
The plea, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, demanded suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and a direction to declare all decisions taken by the ECI without the approval of the two ECs “null and void”. The plea also sought action against Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (Information Technology) of ECI Seema Khanna for breach of duty.
“Declare all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Respondent No. 3 (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners (under Section 18 of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023) as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio,” the plea has prayed.
Unilateral Decisions:
The plea argued that over a period of 10 months (November 2025 – August 2026), the two ECs — Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu — recorded written objections on at least 14 occasions against unilateral decisions executed in the name of the full Commission.
The plea argued that Form 6, which is used to add new voters in the electoral rolls, has been unilaterally altered by the CEC, making it mandatory for first-time voters to declare their relation with their grandparents. The plea further sought restoration of the statutory Form 6 as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
EROs Deprived Of Power:
The plea further argued that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) have been deprived of their powers given under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alleging that the electoral roll management system was centralised under the Director General of IT (DG-IT).
The plea alleged that the facility to reverse/rollback deleted voters who are eligible has been “intentionally omitted” from the software. It raised the issue of Goa, where 97 eligible voters were disfranchised, alleging that the Goa CEO sent eight communications to Gyanesh Bharti and DG-IT Seema Khanna requesting to activate the rollback feature in the ECINet.
“However, the ECI-IT division ignored the requests, disenfranchising all 97 citizens,” the plea alleged.