Who speaks for the Electoral Commission? Supreme Court asserts powers of CEC | Today’s news

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a plea challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), which claims that the powers vested in the panel as a multi-judge constitutional body were exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for early listing of the case, saying that the legal system requires decisions of a multi-judge panel to be unanimous or majority.

The Article 32 petition filed by Bihar petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh sought a direction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, contending that the CEC, as the chairman of the commission, cannot independently exercise the powers conferred by Article 324 on the Election Commission as a body.

Read also | How BJP Prepares Counter Offensive Against Opposition Fight Against EC

The petition relied on at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.

Objections include claims that communications were issued on behalf of the ECI without the Commission’s approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for over a year, and that changes were made to electoral roll systems without the involvement or approval of both Commissioners.

The key complaint concerns the alteration of Form 6 during a special intensive revision of the electoral rolls.

Commissioner Joshi reportedly argued that the form could not be changed to require disclosure related to the SIR without an amendment to the Registration of Voters Rules, 1960, an objection subsequently upheld by Sandhu.

The contested field was nevertheless introduced in July 2026, with Sandhu later calling the change “unwarranted and illegal”.

Read also | Can CEC Gyanesh Kumar be impeached? Rules, process and past attempts

The petition also raised concerns about the alleged centralization of the voter database and access to ERONet/ECINet by statutory bodies at the local level. Joshi proposed an independent audit of the database credentials, while Sandhu later questioned the ECI director general (IT)’s authority to restrict access to statutory election officials.

Another issue concerns appeals filed on behalf of the ECI in the Appellate Tribunals of West Bengal against electors ordered to be enrolled by judicial officers. Sandhu reportedly asked who authorized the filing of the appeal and under what authority.

The Petitioner argued that Article 324 vests electoral powers in the “Election Commission” and not the CEC individually. He relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1995 Constitution Bench judgment in TN Seshan v/s Union of India, which recognized the vital decision-making role of Election Commissioners in a multi-member commission.

The plea further relied on Section 18 of the Chief Electoral Commissioner and Other Electoral Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the affairs of the Commission should, as far as possible, be negotiated unanimously and if the members differ, decided by a majority.

In seeking to review the Commission’s primary records, including agendas, minutes, approval letters, file records, work assignment orders and IT access records, the Petitioner submitted that the allegations should not be treated as conclusively establishing illegality based on media reports alone. Rather, the records should be submitted to determine whether the actions at issue were authorized pursuant to Article 324 and Section 18.

Read also | NDA allies have broken ranks and are demanding transparency from the Election Commission chief

Interim measures requested include retention of electoral roll data and control records, measures against further material changes to Form 6 and protection against irreversible changes to electoral roll data pending adjudication. The petitioner also sought an interim injunction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from performing the functions of CEC and demanding that the business of the Commission be transacted by two other commissioners.

The main prayer sought a declaration that the powers under Article 324 must be exercised by the ECI as a multi-member body in accordance with Section 18 and that no communication, order, direction or appeal can be issued on behalf of the Commission without a decision taken unanimously or, if necessary, by a majority.