Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar has been named in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court, seeking legal action against him over alleged unilateral decisions in the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks to declare decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly undertaken without the concurrence of the majority of Election Commissioners unconstitutional and void.
It also seeks the initiation of prosecution against Kumar and other senior election officials for alleged violations of statutory duties, bringing the functioning of the country's constitutional election authority under renewed judicial scrutiny.
The development follows an investigation by The Indian Express, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period against decisions and orders issued in the name of the Commission.
The allegations have raised questions about internal decision-making at the ECI, particularly over the management of electoral rolls and the rules governing the registration and deletion of voters. The claims in the petition have not yet been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Petition challenges alleged unilateral decisions
According to reports, Tripathi has sought a declaration that decisions taken by Kumar without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, or contrary to the majority opinion, are unconstitutional and void from inception.
The plea specifically invokes Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Section 18 provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously. Where the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners differ in opinion, the matter is to be decided by a majority.
The petitioner argues that the CEC cannot independently exercise the powers of the three-member Commission when the law requires collective decision-making.
The plea seeks the cancellation of decisions, guidelines, directives and software changes allegedly initiated, approved or implemented under Kumar without the requisite concurrence.
It also asks the court to direct the competent statutory authorities to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna and any other officials found responsible for deliberate breaches of official duty. The reliefs sought are substantial. However, the filing of a PIL does not establish criminal liability, and any prosecution would require proceedings before the competent authorities in accordance with law.
14 objections and questions over Form 6
The petition draws heavily on the Indian Express investigation, which reported that Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026.
The reported disagreements concerned voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals against electoral-roll decisions, changes to Form 6 and the handling of voter data.
One of the principal issues is the alleged modification of Form 6, the statutory application used by eligible citizens to register as new voters.
The investigation reported that an additional question linking new applicants to the electoral roll of the previous SIR was introduced into the form. Sandhu and Joshi had reportedly objected to the change, arguing that the form could not be modified in that manner without an amendment to the relevant rules.
The petition seeks restoration of Form 6 in its original statutory format, as prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and asks that eligible adults be allowed to register on the basis of the original requirements.
The dispute is significant because voter registration is a statutory process. Any additional administrative requirement that affects an eligible citizen's ability to enrol raises questions about the relationship between electoral rules and the Commission's administrative powers.
