Supreme Court Refuses to Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Issues Notice to Centre and ECI on Alleged Unilateral Decisions 

The Supreme Court of India has refused to issue an ex-parte interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of unilateral decision-making. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notices to the Election Commission of India and the Union Government, seeking detailed responses within one week. The court cautioned that suspending the CEC without a hearing would stall institutional functioning and disrupt upcoming elections across the nation.

RMN News Legal Desk
New Delhi | October 5, 2026

In a major legal development concerning the administration of India’s democratic process, the Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to grant an ex-parte interim stay seeking the immediate suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana agreed to issue formal notices to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, the Election Commission of India (ECI), CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, as well as senior poll executive officials. The court directed the respondents to file their detailed affidavits within one week, scheduling the next hearing for October 13.

Plea Challenges Alleged Unilateral Decision-Making

The judicial proceedings stem from public interest litigations filed by former bureaucrat Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted before the apex court that at least 14 critical administrative and policy decisions were executed unilaterally by the CEC without consulting or circulating relevant files to the two fellow Election Commissioners.

The petitions highlight that the Election Commission of India functions as a multi-member constitutional body under Article 324 of the Constitution. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act and the Election Commission (Transaction of Business) Rules, decisions must be arrived at unanimously or through a majority vote in cases of disagreement. The petitioners contend that the CEC operates as first among equals and possesses no statutory authority to override colleagues or bypass the collegial decision-making structure.

Also Read:

[ Protests Erupt Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar ]

[ EVM Fraud, Not SIR, Drives India Election Row ]

[ INDIA Bloc Plans EC March Over EVM Concerns ]

Key policy decisions raised in the petitions involve the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across multiple states including Bihar and West Bengal, the rationalization of polling booths, modifications to Form 6, and the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. The petitioners allege that between October 2025 and August 2026, the two Election Commissioners raised multiple written objections regarding the centralization of electoral databases and procedures surrounding voter list revisions.

Bench Emphasizes Due Process and Institutional Continuity

During the arguments, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pressed for urgent interim relief to suspend the CEC, contending that unilateral actions undermine public trust in democratic institutions and voter rights.

Responding to arguments for an immediate suspension, Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted the necessity of institutional stability and due process, observing that suspending the head of the election body ex-parte could stall the Commission completely. The bench questioned who would oversee upcoming elections if the top official were removed without a formal response on record.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the court cannot pass interim directives solely on the basis of news reports or unverified assertions without giving the respondents an opportunity to clarify facts. He noted that if official records subsequently demonstrate that statutory procedures requiring unanimity or majority approval were violated, the court retains full authority to declare those specific decisions ultra vires.

Chief Justice Surya Kant reiterated that the statutory framework governing the ECI is mandatory, stating that the court expects the poll body to adhere strictly to the law and will undo any established contraventions.

Prayers Sought Before the Apex Court

The petitions seek comprehensive directions from the Supreme Court, including:

• Mandatory disclosure of the decision-making records regarding the Special Intensive Revision exercise.
• Directives declaring any policy or administrative decision taken without majority concurrence as null and void.
• A forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases by an independent Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
• Formal proceedings under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 regarding alleged breaches of official duty connected to electoral roll preparation.

The Supreme Court confirmed it will not evaluate the core merits of the claims until formal affidavits are submitted by the Election Commission of India and the Centre by October 13.