A sharp institutional disagreement within the Election Commission of India has now reached the corridors of the Supreme Court. A formal writ petition has been submitted before the apex court seeking criminal proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged violations of statutory obligations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The legal challenge emerges in the wake of recent accounts regarding administrative discord inside the country's top electoral body, bringing procedural oversight and governance standards into sharp national focus.
Constitutional Petition Challenges Administrative Directives
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the petition contends that statutory duties were compromised during the execution of voter list revision exercises. The plea asserts that crucial operational instructions, guidelines, and core software modifications were implemented unilaterally without securing the mandatory concurrence of the two fellow Election Commissioners. The petitioner has urged the court to declare all such unapproved decisions, administrative orders, and software adjustments unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.
This legal intervention closely follows public revelations indicating that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections to Special Intensive Revision decisions on at least 14 separate occasions. These documented reservations pertained to critical administrative actions, including alterations made to voter registration Form 6 and policies governing electoral roll data management. Certain contested decisions were reportedly finalized either without informing both Election Commissioners or directly contrary to their official recommendations.
Prosecution Sought Under Representation of the People Act
The petitioner has specifically requested court directions instructing the competent authority to lodge formal complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The plea names Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, Director General of Information Technology Seema Khanna, and other officials deemed responsible for the alleged breach of official duty. Section 32 provides for punitive measures against personnel who breach official duties related to the preparation, revision, or correction of electoral rolls.
Among the specific grievances detailed in the plea are alleged unauthorized modifications introduced into Form 6, the centralization of the voter roll database architecture, and failures to reinstate eligible citizens through the ECINet infrastructure. Furthermore, the petition highlights the contentious filing of 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal challenging voter inclusions in the name of the election authority, characterizing these actions as serious operational deviations that warrant thorough judicial scrutiny.
Plea Invokes Statutory Mandate for Majority Consensus
The petition further prays that the Supreme Court nullify all policies, circulars, and technical software updates instituted under the Chief Election Commissioner's tenure that lacked full institutional consensus. It argues that any directive issued where the majority viewpoint of the Election Commissioners stood in opposition must be struck down to preserve institutional integrity and democratic norms.
In grounding these demands, the petitioner cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. This statutory provision establishes that whenever differences of opinion arise between the Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners on any issue, the matter must strictly be decided according to the majority opinion. According to the petition, Election Commissioners Vivek Joshi and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu had explicitly recorded their objections to changes in Form 6 during May 2026, setting the stage for the current constitutional challenge before the apex court.
