A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking, among other reliefs, the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC and a declaration that decisions vested in the Election Commission of India cannot be taken unilaterally by its Chairman.

The petition has been filed in the context of reports that about 14 decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the petition, the two Commissioners recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning steps which, according to them, were taken without the approval of the Commission

The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks a direction requiring the CEC to "show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act" as though he is individually entitled to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 of the Constitution in the Election Commission.

The plea also seeks the CEC's suspension pending adjudication, production of the Commission's original institutional records and constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission/Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

"Issue a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling upon Respondent No. 3 [CEC Gyanesh Kumar] to show under what authority he has acted, and continues to act, as though entitled individually to exercise the collective decision-making power vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a body.", the petitioner's prayer stated.

The Writ of quo warranto is sought on the ground that Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an “Election Commission", and not in the Chief Election Commissioner in its personal capacity.

The petitioner contends that although Article 324(3) makes the CEC the Chairman of the Commission, the constitutional position of Chairman cannot be equated with that of the institution itself.

The petition puts the issue in emphatic terms:

"Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not vest the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It vests those powers in 'a Commission'."

According to the petitioner, the distinction becomes particularly significant because the Election Commission presently comprises the CEC and two Election Commissioners, and the statutory framework prescribes a mechanism for collective decision-making.

The plea also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision, that business shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, and that differences between the CEC and Election Commissioners are to be decided by majority.

The petitioner seeks a corresponding declaration that the powers under Article 324 are constitutionally required to be exercised by the Election Commission as a multi-member body in accordance with Article 324 read with Section 18 of the 2023 Act.

It further seeks a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other action can be issued or represented as an act of the Commission unless supported by a decision taken unanimously or by majority, as applicable.

Petition cited 14 contemporaneous objections by two Election Commissioners

The objections allegedly concern actions taken in the name of the Commission allegedly without the knowledge or approval of the two Commissioners. Importantly, the petitioner itself acknowledges that these allegations cannot simply be assumed to be established on the basis of the objections.

The plea thus states:

"The Petitioner does not ask this Hon'ble Court to resolve, as a matter of first instance, whether each of these disputed steps was in fact taken without lawful Commission authority; that is a question of fact that depends on the primary record, including minutes, file notings, approval sheets and orders, that lies with Respondent No. 2 and has not been placed in the public domain."

It is on this basis that the petitioner seeks production of the Commission's primary records.

One of the principal examples cited by the petitioner concerns the alteration of Form-6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

According to the petition, the form was altered in July 2026 to require applicants to state whether they or their parents or grandparents "exist" in the electoral roll of the last SIR.

The petitioner relies on a May 16, 2026 noting allegedly made by Commissioner Joshi, who objected that Form-6 could not lawfully be altered without amending the relevant Rules. Commissioner Sandhu is stated to have concurred with the objection on May 19.

The petition further claims that, despite these recorded objections, the altered form was introduced in July.

It refers to a subsequent noting by Sandhu dated August 13, 2026, in which the change was allegedly described as "unauthorised and illegal" and was said to "must be removed immediately."

Plea alleges 'gradual centralisation' of the database

The petition also relies upon alleged objections concerning the Commission's electoral-roll database.

According to the plea, Commissioner Joshi raised concerns on May 29, 2026 regarding what he described as the "gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database" and proposed an audit to determine whether persons other than the concerned statutory authorities possessed credentials capable of altering the database.

The petitioner states that Commissioner Sandhu subsequently endorsed the concern.

The plea further refers to a communication dated August 14, 2026 in which Sandhu allegedly recorded that State-level election officials did not have "proper and complete access" to the ERONet portal.

According to the petition, Sandhu further recorded that the Commission's Director General (IT) "doesn't have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access... to the statutory authorities."

The petitioner consequently seeks preservation and production of server logs, audit trails, access records and database-change histories.

Questions raised over authorization to file appeals in West Bengal SIR

Another issue relied upon in support of the institutional-authority argument concerns appeals filed before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals.

The petition alleges that approximately 16.10 lakh appeals had been filed in the name of the Election Commission against electors whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers.

It relies on an August 12, 2026 noting attributed to Commissioner Sandhu, who allegedly questioned the authority for filing the appeals: "Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?", the petition says.

The petitioner seeks production of the relevant authorisation, approval and decision-making records.

Reliefs sought

The petitioner has specifically sought a declaration that no communication, order, direction, appeal or other act may be issued or represented as an act of the ECI except pursuant to a decision of the Commission taken unanimously or, where there is disagreement, by majority in accordance with Section 18 of the 2023 Act.

The petition also seeks directions to the ECI to maintain a regular practice of circulating agendas before, and minutes after, every Commission meeting and to record the authorisation for communications, orders, directions and appeals issued in the name of the Commission.

In an interim prayer, the petitioner has sought a direction that Gyanesh Kumar should not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner pending final hearing of the petition. It further seeks a direction that, during this period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, and that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee including the Chief Justice of India.

The petition also seeks preservation of the ECI's physical and electronic records, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence, work-allocation orders, IT-access records and server logs relating to the issues raised.

The petitioner has further sought examination of the primary records of the Commission to determine whether the disputed actions were undertaken in accordance with the constitutional and statutory framework. The petition itself states that it does not ask the Court to determine at the first instance whether each disputed action was in fact taken without lawful authority, but seeks production and examination of the underlying records

The PIL was drawn by Adv. Sudeep Chandra and filed by AoR Mudit Gupta.

Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Related: Petition Seeks Contempt Action Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar For Alleged Violation Of Supreme Court Judgments

Plea In Bombay High Court To Quash 14 Orders Passed By CEC Gyanesh Kumar Despite Objections Of 2 ECs

Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Prosecution Of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, SIT Inquiry Into SIR Voter Deletions