The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted petitioners 10 days to respond to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) affidavit denying allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions unilaterally, including those related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, The Times of India reported.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, deferred the hearing to November 17.
“We know everything, we will examine,” the Chief Justice said as petitioners sought the preservation of internal communications and file notings to establish how the poll panel arrived at its decisions.
The petitions allege that several decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections from the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The allegations include decisions concerning the SIR exercise and changes to electoral roll procedures.
Appearing for Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi urged the court to direct the preservation of relevant records, arguing that they would help establish whether the decisions were taken unanimously.
The ECI, in its counter-affidavit, rejected the allegations of unilateral decision-making, maintaining that all three SIR-related orders were approved unanimously by the three election commissioners. It also said Form 6, used to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, had not been amended.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, raised concerns about Form 6 and alleged that the ECI had wrongly suggested that the Supreme Court had approved changes to the form. The poll panel’s counsel, Maninder Singh, dismissed the allegations as rhetoric.
The petitions follow reports that at least 14 decisions linked to the SIR exercise were taken in the ECI’s name despite objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
The petitioners have questioned whether the commission’s decision-making process complies with Article 324 of the Constitution and the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for decisions to be taken unanimously as far as possible and by majority where unanimity cannot be reached.
The Supreme Court had earlier sought responses from the Centre, the ECI and the concerned election officials. It had declined to pass an interim order suspending Kumar, while indicating that it would examine the allegations and could annul decisions found to be contrary to law.
Comments (0)