The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued a formal notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in response to a batch of petitions challenging the poll body's administrative functioning. The legal challenge centers on allegations that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar has been taking decisions unilaterally, bypassing the consensus expected in a multi-member constitutional body. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana presided over the hearing, granting the petitioners a two-week window to submit a formal rejoinder to the Election Commission’s recently filed affidavit.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, representing Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, raised significant concerns regarding the commission's operations. The arguments highlighted allegations involving the centralisation of the ERONET electoral roll database and purported tampering with Form 6, which is used for new voter registrations. Guruswamy claimed that the ECI had issued a press note incorrectly suggesting that the Supreme Court had authorised such modifications, a point that prompted the Chief Justice to state that the court would examine the matter.
The Election Commission, represented by senior advocate Maninder Singh, defended its record by submitting an affidavit that asserts all decisions—specifically regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) orders issued in June 2025, October 2025, and May 2026—were unanimous. The poll body’s submission explicitly denied claims that CEC Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally or that Form 6 had been amended through these orders. The ECI maintained that internal technical notes and written queries are routine practices for a constitutional body and that the final decisions were reached with the collective consent of all commission members.
The controversy surrounding the commission's decision-making gained traction following a report on September 23, which alleged that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had expressed objections to various orders on at least 14 occasions over a ten-month period. These allegations have fueled mounting political opposition, with various parties raising questions about transparency and accountability in the electoral process. The INDIA bloc has reportedly announced plans for a symbolic public impeachment proceeding against the CEC on October 30, ahead of a planned march at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on November 1.
The legal challenge encompasses broader concerns regarding the administrative handling of voter registration procedures and the potential deletion of voters during the recent SIR exercises. Amidst these arguments, advocate Matthews Nedumpara raised questions concerning the maintainability of the filed petitions. Following the legal exchanges, the bench granted the Election Commission the liberty to file consistent counter-affidavits across the various petitions concerning the issue, or to submit additional material if necessary.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue a notice marks a critical development in the ongoing scrutiny of the poll panel's internal processes. By setting a deadline of two weeks for the petitioners to respond to the ECI's arguments, the court has effectively paused the immediate proceedings to allow for a more thorough examination of the conflicting claims. The bench has scheduled the next hearing for November 17, when it is expected to further evaluate the documentation and arguments presented by both the petitioners and the Election Commission regarding the governance of the institution.
Comments