Supreme Court Defers Immediate Action on CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Awaits Election Commission’s Reply

New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court refrained from issuing any instant injunction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions challenging his conduct and the decision‑making framework of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the court has directed the commission to submit a written response and the relevant documents before any further step is taken.

The Court Wants the Commission’s Narrative First

The three‑judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and joined by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, issued a notice to the Election Commission in response to petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The judges made it clear that they will assess the allegations only after reviewing the commission’s reply and accompanying records. No suspension, removal, or restriction of the CEC’s functions has been ordered at this stage.

Petitioners’ Principal Claims

The pleadings allege that several decisions, which the law mandates to be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly made unilaterally by the CEC. Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks an interim order preventing Gyanesh Kumar from acting as Chief Election Commissioner until the matter is resolved, and requests that the commission’s operations during that period reflect the unanimous view of the other two commissioners.

In a separate filing, Shailendra Mani Tripathi urges criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, alleging breach of statutory duties.

Contention Over Collective Decision‑Making

The petitioners invoke the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, asserting that internal disagreements must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority principle where applicable. They contend that powers belonging to the Commission as a whole were exercised by the CEC alone and raise concerns about changes to election‑related software.

The Election Commission, for its part, maintains that all its orders are legally sound and that divergent views among members are a normal feature of any deliberative body.

Scrutiny of Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

The petitions also spotlight the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Citing a media report, the petitioners claim that the two other Election Commissioners repeatedly objected to specific SIR decisions over the past ten months.

Controversy Surrounding Form‑6 Modifications

Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, is another flashpoint. The petitioners argue that the Election Commission introduced changes via election software—such as new requirements about ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises—without following the mandated legal procedure.

Regional Disputes: Goa and West Bengal

• Goa: Petitioners assert that although instructions were issued to reinstate 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑add them.
• West Bengal: The filings reference more than 1.61 million appeals related to the state’s electoral‑roll process.

Next Steps After the Commission’s Reply

The Supreme Court has not treated the allegations as established facts at this point. It awaits the Election Commission’s detailed response and supporting records before deciding whether any further judicial intervention is warranted. The commission’s submission will be pivotal in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.