Supreme Court will hear two petitions against CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Monday.
Petitioners allege SIR decisions were taken despite objections from two Election Commissioners.
One plea seeks Kumar’s suspension; another challenges 14 allegedly unilateral Commission decisions.
The Supreme Court will hear two petitions on Monday challenging decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar allegedly took without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will hear the petitions, which seek Kumar’s suspension, the quashing of 14 disputed decisions and an independent investigation, Live Law reported.
The petitions cite reports that decisions were taken in the Election Commission of India’s name despite objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They state that the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various SIR measures.
One petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Singh, has asked the court to declare that the ECI, being a multi-member body, cannot take decisions unilaterally. He also wants the Commission’s primary records examined to determine whether the disputed actions followed the constitutional and statutory framework. As interim relief, Singh has sought Kumar’s suspension as CEC.
The second petitioner, advocate Shaildendra Mani Tripathi, has sought the quashing of the 14 decisions allegedly taken unilaterally. He has also requested an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team led by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts, Live Law reported.
Tripathi wants the proposed inquiry to conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases and investigate his allegation that 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States and Union Territories during the SIR exercise.
He has further sought directions to the competent authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, Director General (IT) Seema Khanna and other officials found responsible for an alleged breach of official duty.
The petition relies on Section 32, which provides punishment for specified breaches of official duty relating to the preparation, revision or correction of electoral rolls.
The alleged actions include unauthorised changes to Form 6, centralisation of electoral-roll databases and failure to restore eligible voters through ECINet. Tripathi has also challenged the filing of 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal against voters’ inclusion, purportedly in the ECI’s name.
