New Delhi, September 29 (Daily Kiran) : The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition challenging the decision-making process of the Election Commission of India. This petition raises concerns about Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s authority to make decisions independently. The court is set to review the matter next week.
Senior lawyer Vikas Singh presented the case before Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, who directed that it be listed for hearing in the coming week.
The petition argues for the necessity of collective decision-making within the Election Commission. It questions whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar can exercise powers constitutionally granted to the entire commission unilaterally. According to the petition, Article 324 of the Constitution states that the conduct, direction, and control of elections lie within the commission, not with a single chief election commissioner.
The petition also references Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which emphasizes collective decision-making. It states that in cases where consensus cannot be reached, decisions should be made by majority vote.
Additionally, the petition highlights concerns raised by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who reportedly filed at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026. They claim that numerous decisions were made without their approval, including issuing orders without the commission’s consent, failing to provide agendas before meetings, unauthorized foreign travel, changes to Form 6, access to voter list databases, and filing appeals before a tribunal in West Bengal.
The petition also mentions that both commissioners expressed worries about the gradual centralization of the voter list database and changes in the division of labor within the Election Commission’s IT department.
The petitioners seek a declaration that the powers granted to the Election Commission under Article 324 must be exercised in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework. They also demand adherence to collective decision-making practices and the preservation of records related to contentious decisions.
In response, the Election Commission contends that disagreements among commissioners do not constitute an institutional “breakdown.” It maintains that internal objections and written notes are part of standard procedures in a multi-member constitutional body. The commission asserts that decisions related to the SIR were made unanimously.
Leave a Comment