Delhi, Sept. 29: The Supreme Court will hear next week a fresh petition questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar can individually exercise or represent powers constitutionally vested in the multi-member Election Commission of India, putting the poll panel’s decision-making structure before the court. The matter was mentioned on Tuesday before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by senior advocate Vikas Singh, after which the CJI directed that it be listed next week.
The petition seeks enforcement of the Election Commission’s collective decision-making framework and a writ in the nature of quo warranto concerning the authority under which the CEC has reportedly acted in the name of the Commission.
It argues that Article 324 of the Constitution places the superintendence, direction and control of elections with the “Commission”, rather than an individual Chief Election Commissioner. The plea 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 and requires matters without unanimity to be decided by majority.
The petitioner has cited written communications and file notings attributed to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petition, the two commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over decisions and steps allegedly taken in the name of the ECI without their approval. Similar reporting has documented the objections and the issues raised by the two commissioners.
The matters cited in the plea include communications and orders allegedly issued without the poll panel’s approval, the absence of agendas before and minutes after meetings, foreign travel undertaken without approval, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral-roll database and appeals filed before tribunals in West Bengal.
The petition also refers to concerns allegedly raised by Sandhu and Joshi over the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and changes in the work allocation of the Commission’s IT establishment.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that powers vested in the ECI under Article 324 cannot be exercised or represented as an act of the Commission except in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework. It has also sought directions requiring compliance with the collective decision-making process and preservation and production of records relating to the disputed decisions.
The ECI, however, has maintained that differences between commissioners do not constitute an institutional rupture and that internal objections and written notes are established parts of deliberation in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision, were unanimous.
