Supreme Court Refuses to Restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Seeks Responses on SIR Pleas
They also sought judicial scrutiny of the SIR exercise and other measures undertaken by the Election Commission.
Total Views |
New Delhi, October 5: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass any interim order restraining Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, while issuing notices to the Centre, Election Commission of India and the other Election Commissioners on petitions challenging the CEC's functioning in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing petitions filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petitions alleged that several important decisions connected with SIR were taken by the CEC without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitioners sought the suspension of Kumar and questioned the legality of decisions allegedly taken unilaterally. They also sought judicial scrutiny of the SIR exercise and other measures undertaken by the Election Commission.
The Bench, however, declined to grant immediate interim relief. It made clear that the Court could not pass an order merely on the basis of media reports or assumptions and that the factual position had to be established before any such direction could be considered.
The Court sought responses from the concerned authorities. A central issue before the Court is the manner in which the Election Commission takes decisions under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The petitions rely on reports that the two other Election Commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months concerning decisions and orders related to the functioning of the poll panel and SIR. The petitioners contend that these objections raise questions about whether the CEC acted within the statutory framework governing the Commission's collective functioning.
The Bench also dealt with a separate challenge concerning changes allegedly made to Form 6, used for registering new voters. The petitions have also raised questions concerning the EC's digital electoral-roll systems, including ECINet and ERONet, and sought examination of the processes through which changes to voter data were made.
Monday's proceedings therefore do not amount to a judicial finding against the CEC or the Election Commission. The Court has neither suspended Gyanesh Kumar nor stayed the SIR exercise. Instead, it has sought the responses and records necessary to determine whether the challenged decisions were taken in accordance with the law.
The case will now turn on the responses of the Centre and the Election Commission and the documentary material placed before the Court.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing petitions filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petitions alleged that several important decisions connected with SIR were taken by the CEC without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The Bench, however, declined to grant immediate interim relief. It made clear that the Court could not pass an order merely on the basis of media reports or assumptions and that the factual position had to be established before any such direction could be considered.
The Court sought responses from the concerned authorities. A central issue before the Court is the manner in which the Election Commission takes decisions under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The petitions rely on reports that the two other Election Commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months concerning decisions and orders related to the functioning of the poll panel and SIR. The petitioners contend that these objections raise questions about whether the CEC acted within the statutory framework governing the Commission's collective functioning.
The Election Commission has disputed that interpretation, maintaining that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously and that some of the disagreements cited in reports related to administrative matters rather than substantive policy decisions.
The ecosystem is being mischievous. The facts are:
— Rahul Shivshankar (@RShivshankar) October 5, 2026
SC DIDN'T APPROVE THE MODIFIED FORM 6. BUT SC DID UPHOLD ECI'S RESIDUAL AUTHORITY TO ADAPT THE DOCUMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR SIR.
This is the distinction ECOSYSTEM is deliberately blurring.
Yes, the Supreme Court has now… pic.twitter.com/6f1RhDX1pq
Form 6 issue
Monday's proceedings therefore do not amount to a judicial finding against the CEC or the Election Commission. The Court has neither suspended Gyanesh Kumar nor stayed the SIR exercise. Instead, it has sought the responses and records necessary to determine whether the challenged decisions were taken in accordance with the law.
The case will now turn on the responses of the Centre and the Election Commission and the documentary material placed before the Court.