The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to issue an interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The decision comes amidst serious allegations that Kumar made several key decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the required concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
SC Seeks Responses from Union Government, ECI
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Union government, the Election Commission of India (ECI), CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The court has also sought responses from other officials named in the petitions.
Petitioners had urged the court to immediately suspend Kumar, arguing that his alleged conduct could undermine the constitutional body's functioning. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioners, stated, "The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn."
Allegations of Unilateral Decision-Making
The petitions stem from reports alleging that approximately 14 decisions were made in the name of the poll panel despite objections recorded by Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi. These objections, raised between October 2025 and August 2026, primarily concerned various aspects of the SIR exercise.
The petitioners are seeking directions against these alleged decisions and questioning whether the CEC can exercise the ECI’s powers without the explicit approval of the other Election Commissioners.
Court Emphasizes Collective Functioning
During the proceedings, the bench indicated that it would first examine the responses from the Election Commission and the Union government before considering any further relief. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the ECI is expected to function through collective decision-making. "They are expected to take unanimous decisions... if there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority," he stated.
The court further indicated a willingness to reconsider or recall decisions if it finds that they were indeed taken without the required unanimity among the commissioners. The refusal to grant interim relief at this stage does not resolve the allegations against the CEC; the matter will proceed after the respondents file their replies.