Supreme Court Seeks ECI Response in SIR Row, Declines Interim Suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant an interim request seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid a controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s decision-making process during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Instead, the Court issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, Gyanesh Kumar and other concerned respondents, seeking their responses to the allegations.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, indicated that the matter required a detailed examination of official records before any conclusion could be reached. The Court’s approach keeps the focus on the legal and institutional questions surrounding the functioning of the Election Commission.
Court Seeks Clarity on Collective Decision-Making
The petitions before the Supreme Court have raised questions about whether certain decisions connected with the SIR exercise were taken in accordance with the decision-making procedure applicable to the multi-member Election Commission.
The petitioners have alleged that several decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They have referred to objections reportedly raised during the period between October 2025 and August 2026 and argued that the powers of the Commission are intended to be exercised collectively.
The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were taken in accordance with the applicable legal framework. The Court will now examine the official records and responses of the concerned authorities rather than reaching a conclusion solely on the basis of the allegations made in the petitions.
Form 6 Modification Under Scrutiny
One of the issues that came up during the proceedings concerns Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens seeking inclusion in electoral rolls. Questions have been raised about changes made to the online version of the form during the SIR process, including information relating to an applicant’s parents and their status during an earlier revision exercise. The petitioners have questioned the authority under which the changes were introduced.
Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified during the hearing that the Supreme Court had not approved any such modification to Form 6. The Court indicated that the relevant records would have to be examined to establish how the changes were made and who authorised them. The issue has therefore become part of the wider judicial examination of the administrative procedures followed during the electoral-roll revision exercise.
No Immediate Suspension of CEC
The petitioners had sought immediate interim action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, arguing that the allegations concerning unilateral decision-making warranted intervention. The Court, however, did not grant the requested interim suspension at this stage.
The bench instead opted to hear the Election Commission and the other respondents before considering further action. This means that Monday’s proceedings do not constitute a finding against the CEC or establish that any decision was unlawful.
The Court has indicated that if examination of the records reveals that a decision was taken without the authority or procedure required by law, appropriate action could subsequently be considered.
Broader Constitutional Questions
Beyond the immediate controversy, the case raises broader questions about how a multi-member Election Commission should function when its members have differing views.
The petitions have invoked Article 324 of the Constitution, which entrusts the superintendence, direction and control of elections to the Election Commission. The proceedings also involve interpretation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, particularly regarding the manner in which decisions of the Commission are to be taken.
The Supreme Court’s examination could therefore have significance beyond the present SIR dispute. It may provide greater clarity on the respective institutional roles of the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners and the procedure that must be followed when disagreements arise.
What Happens Next
The Election Commission, the Centre, the CEC and the other respondents will now have an opportunity to place their positions and relevant records before the Supreme Court. The Court is expected to examine the material before deciding whether any of the challenged decisions require further judicial intervention.
For the moment, the Supreme Court has chosen to proceed through a detailed examination rather than granting the requested interim suspension. The next stage of the proceedings will therefore depend on the responses submitted by the concerned authorities and the Court’s assessment of the official records.
The MGMM Outlook
The Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Election Commission of India, the Centre and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar keeps the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) under judicial examination. The Court declined to grant an interim suspension of the CEC, choosing instead to examine official records and the responses of the concerned authorities before reaching any conclusion. The proceedings are particularly focused on questions surrounding collective decision-making within the multi-member Election Commission and the process through which changes to Form 6 were introduced during the electoral-roll revision exercise.
The case also has wider institutional significance as the Supreme Court examines the functioning of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework. A detailed examination of records can help establish the facts and provide greater clarity on the respective roles and decision-making responsibilities of Election Commissioners. With the matter still before the Court, the next stage will depend on the responses and documents submitted by the concerned authorities, while the judicial process will determine whether any further intervention is required.
(Sources: Business Today, The Indian Express, LiveMint)
Comments