India's Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, poll panel over CEC Gyanesh Kumar's functioning; no interim order

The Supreme Court yesterday (5 October) refused to pass an interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that he took decisions unilaterally at the Election Commission of India (ECI), without the consensus of the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

A Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the ECI and the Centre, seeking responses within a week to a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by the CEC took decisions allegedly without the approval of the two other Election Commissioners, according to PTI.

The court indicated that if, after considering the ECI's response, it finds that certain decisions were taken by the CEC without the required unanimity, it could reconsider or recall those decisions.

The petition was filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeking the removal of Gyanesh as CEC until the hearing was concluded.

"Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea stated.

"After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back," the court said.

The petitions were filed following reports by the Indian Express that around 14 decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections raised by the other two Election Commissioners.

According to the petitions, the two commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over various steps related to the SIR.

Modified Form 6 not approved by us: CJI

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, referred to the manner in which the SIR was conducted in Delhi. She said two new conditions had been added and claimed that she herself had received a notice under the exercise.

"Now there's another election cycle. CEC's functioning is biased to say the least!" Guruswamy said, according to LiveLaw.

The CJI, however, clarified that the court had not approved any modified Form 6. "Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified. But your prayers appear jumbled up," he said.