New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a petition next week challenging the unilateral decision-making authority of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea alleges that the Chief Election Commissioner executed several critical policy and administrative choices on behalf of the Election Commission of India without the requisite approval or concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners.
The matter was mentioned on Tuesday by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh before a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. Presenting the urgency of the issue, Singh argued that the constitutional design of a multi-member Election Commission requires all decisions to be taken either unanimously or by a majority. The senior counsel raised particular objections to actions taken regarding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, demanding clarification on whether these moves reflected the collective will of the complete panel. Acceding to the request for an urgent listing, the Chief Justice directed the matter to be heard next week.
Filed by petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, the petition seeks a writ of Quo Warranto calling upon the Chief Election Commissioner to explain under what authority he exercised collective statutory powers on his own. At present, the multi-member commission comprises Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar alongside Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Citing Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the petition highlights that all administrative and electoral business must be transacted unanimously where possible, or decided by a majority vote in the event of a difference of opinion.
The plea claims that between October 28, 2025, and August 14, 2026, the two fellow Election Commissioners lodged at least 14 formal objections against actions undertaken in the commission’s name without prior discussion or approval. These objections reportedly pointed out unilateral revisions in electoral roll protocols, persistent delays or missing circulation of meeting agendas and minutes, as well as the filing of appeals before courts without their formal clearance.
The petition argues that concentrating collective constitutional powers into a single office undermines the core framework of the commission and raises significant constitutional concerns. It urges the top court to declare any unilateral decisions taken in contravention of Section 18 as illegal. Furthermore, the petition requests the court to quash and declare void ab initio all orders, guidelines, and subsequent actions associated with the Special Intensive Revision process executed without majority consensus.
