The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that he took decisions unilaterally in the Election Commission of India (ECI), without the consensus of the two other Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
A SC bench headed by CJI Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the EC and the Centre seeking responses in a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by CEC took decisions allegedly without the approval of two Election Commissioners, according to PTI.
The court indicated that if, after considering the EC's response, it finds that certain decisions were taken by the CEC without the required unanimity, it could reconsider or recall those decisions.
The petition was filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, asking the court to dismiss Gyanesh as CEC until hearing was finished.
{{/usCountry}}The petition was filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, asking the court to dismiss Gyanesh as CEC until hearing was finished.
{{/usCountry}}"Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea stated.
“After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back,” the court said.
Also Read | 'No point in participating in polls until Gyanesh Kumar resigns': CJP's Abhijeet Dipke amid SIR row
The petitions were filed after the Indian Express reports that around 14 decisions were taken in the name of the EC despite objections raised by the other two Election Commissioners.
According to the petitions, the two commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 over various steps related to the SIR.
Modified form 6 not approved by us: CJI
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, referred to the manner in which the SIR was conducted in Delhi. She said two new conditions had been added and claimed that she herself had received a notice under the exercise.
“Now there's another election cycle. CEC's functioning is biased to say the least!” Guruswamy said, according to LiveLaw.
The CJI, however, clarified that the court had not approved any modified Form 6. “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified. But, your prayers appear jumbled up,” he said.