No Interim Relief, But Notice Issued: SC’s Measured Response to ECI Dissent Plea

SC says it would roll back any orders found to have bypassed the Commission's required unanimity or majority process

October 5, 2026

SCs Response To The ECI Dissent Plea — "We will roll back orders if needed" — SC's notice to CEC Gyanesh Kumar explained

SC won’t act on a news report alone — but it’s not dismissing the ECI dissent case either

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass any interim order on a petition seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, telling the petitioner it could not act purely on the strength of a newspaper investigation, even as it issued notice to the Election Commission, the Centre, Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners on the broader plea.

The petition had sought Kumar’s suspension as CEC and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman, alleging he had pushed through decisions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without the consensus of Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu.

What the Court said

While refusing an interim order, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made clear that the Court could not pass orders on the basis of a news report alone — a reference to the Indian Express investigation that first revealed Sandhu and Joshi had formally recorded objections to Commission decisions at least 14 times over a 10-month period. The Court nonetheless indicated it was taking the underlying issue seriously, stating that if any discrepancy in the Commission’s decision-making were found, it would roll back the orders in question.

What the petition is asking for

Filed by senior advocate Vikas Singh, the petition argues that the Constitution envisions a multi-member Election Commission whose decisions must be taken collectively — either unanimously or by majority — rather than unilaterally by the Chief Election Commissioner. It seeks a writ of quo warranto calling on Kumar to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Commission as a body.

The petition also seeks a broader declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other action can be issued or represented as an act of the ECI unless it is backed by a decision taken unanimously, or by majority where there is disagreement, in line with Section 18 of the 2023 Act governing the Commission.

A measured approach from the petitioner

Notably, the petition itself does not ask the Supreme Court to determine, at this stage, whether each disputed decision was in fact taken without lawful Commission authority. Instead, it seeks production of the ECI’s primary records — including minutes, file notings, approval sheets, orders and other internal documents — to allow that determination to be made on the basis of actual evidence rather than media reporting alone.

Background

The petition follows weeks of controversy sparked by the Indian Express investigation, which reported that Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had raised formal, on-record objections to a series of decisions, including changes to the voter registration process, restricted database access, and anomalies in rolls during the SIR exercise. The Election Commission has previously responded that differing views among members during deliberations are a normal part of its functioning and that all decisions taken by the full Commission have ultimately been unanimous.

The matter will now proceed with the Election Commission, the Centre, and the three Commissioners expected to file their responses before the next hearing.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.