Supreme Court plea seeks SIT probe against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, audit of election body databases

The suit says the matter touches the very foundation of India’s constitutional democracy, free and fair elections and the institutional independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI). File | Photo credit: The Hindu

A petition filed in the Supreme Court on Friday (September 25, 2026) sought the constitution of an independent, high-powered judicial inquiry commission or special investigation team headed by a former high court judge to probe the allegations against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea said such investigation must include, among other things, a comprehensive audit of the Election Commission’s databases and examine the institutional circumstances under which 13 million names in 30 states/Union Territories were deleted under the Special Intensive Review (SIR).

The plea, filed by Supreme Court advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by advocate Chand Qureshi, said while Mr Kumar would be stripped of any statutory or constitutional immunity in light of the charges, the CEC remains directly liable under the law – subject to police investigation, collection of evidence and regular trial as an “ordinary accused”.

Mr. Tripathi argued that the allegations leveled against Mr. Kumar in the investigative newspaper report do not show any reasonable nexus with his official functions and responsibilities and include manipulation of the electoral roll. The charges constitute a cognizable offense under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

“Once there is no logical and legal coherence between the law and the official duty, the doctrine of ‘reasonable nexus’ completely collapses. In the absence of this legal connection, the statutory protection available under Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner Act and other Election Commissioner Acts of 2023 becomes completely ineffective,” the petition claims.

The petition was filed after The Indian Express reported that official files revealed that two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had formally recorded written objections and objections on at least 14 different occasions, including four in one day, over a period of 10 months against “unilateral, unwarranted and illegal decisions” taken and executed by Mr. Kumar on behalf of the election commission.

The suit says the matter touches the very foundation of India’s constitutional democracy, free and fair elections and the institutional independence of the Election Commission of India.

The petition said the “unlawful” acts included unilaterally amending Statutory Form 6 to introduce a mandatory ancestry condition or “last connection SIR” for young first-time voters without legislative authority or amending the Voter Registration Rules, 1960; disenfranchisement due to software failure; unauthorized subversion in West Bengal by filing more than 16.10 lakh unauthorized applications on behalf of EC to purge citizens renewed by 700 judicial officers without the knowledge, permission or sanction of the other two Election Commissioners or the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal etc.

Mr. Tripathi said that being a public servant does not in itself grant legal legitimacy or protection to malicious or criminal conduct.

“Deliberate manipulation of records, falsification or subversion of the constitutional electoral process in the course of the performance of official duties cannot under any circumstances be considered an integral part of such duties,” the petition states.

From a constitutional point of view, the petition argued that ÚVK does not enjoy personal immunity from criminal prosecution. Under Article 361 of the Constitution, absolute personal immunity from prosecution and arrest during their term of office is granted only to the President and Governors.

“Section 324 only provides the CEC with security of tenure (subject to removal), not immunity from personal criminal liability… The Election Commission operates under the rule of law and is not a law per se. Furthermore, Section 16 of the 2023 Act contains no express bar to police investigation or arrest,” the petition said.

The petition states that even otherwise, it is an established principle of jurisprudence that “fraud unravels everything”.

“If electoral rolls are deliberately manipulated in direct violation of the constitutional mandate to hold free and fair elections, such conduct is derogatory from the purported discharge of duty, rendering the legal shield of Section 16 inapplicable,” the petition contends.

Published – 25 Sep 2026 14:22 IST