Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Challenging Decision-Making by CEC Gyanesh Kumar A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is scheduled to examine petitions questioning the legality of decisions taken under the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. A significant judicial examination regarding the administrative functioning of India's election machinery is set to unfold before the nation's highest court. The Supreme Court has scheduled a key hearing on Monday, October 5, to take up petitions questioning the operational methods and unilateral governance allegedly adopted by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana will hear the arguments presented in separate public interest litigations challenging the protocols followed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists. The legal challenges have been brought forward by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Allegations of Bypassing Fellow Election Commissioners At the heart of the petitions lies the grievance that the institutional multi-member character of the Election Commission has been compromised. The petitioners contend that major administrative and technical determinations were executed solely by the Chief Election Commissioner without securing the formal concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. Because the Constitution vests election governance collectively in the Commission, the petitioners argue that any singular exercise of such powers lacks a valid legal foundation. They have urged the court to evaluate whether regulatory updates, software alterations, and field instructions related to the SIR exercise can be sanctioned without the collective agreement of the entire bench of commissioners. Records of Dissent Across Ten Months The controversy gained significant traction following disclosures that internal friction had arisen repeatedly within the commission. According to details placed before the bench, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally registered their objections on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month timeframe regarding SIR directives and regulatory circulars. Their reservations reportedly stemmed from crucial guidelines and technical modifications being implemented without their prior knowledge or formal recommendations. Responding to such controversies, the Election Commission has maintained that differences of perspective during internal deliberations represent normal institutional discourse and that every directive issued retains full legal enforceability. Interim Restraint and Altered Governance Mechanism Sought The public interest litigation filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks immediate judicial intervention pending the final adjudication of the dispute. The plea requests the court to temporarily restrain Gyanesh Kumar from discharging his functions as Chief Election Commissioner until the proceedings conclude. To maintain operational continuity, the petition proposes that the everyday governance of the poll body be entrusted jointly to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi through mutual consensus. Furthermore, the petition urges that any vacancy arising from such judicial directions should be filled exclusively through a selection panel that includes the Chief Justice of India. Safeguarding the Multi-Member Framework The core legal premise advanced in the petitions rests on preserving the constitutional ethos of collective decision-making within the poll authority. The petitioners contend that decisions statutorily assigned to the commission as a collective body cannot be reduced to unilateral executive actions. Should the court find that unilateral choices were made on matters falling squarely under the collective mandate of the commission, the petitioners have asked that those determinations be declared unauthorized and void, with appropriate legal consequences enforced against administrative lapses. Demand for Judicial Inquiry into Voter Deletions In a parallel petition, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has raised alarms over the scale of deletions executed during the special revision exercise, citing allegations that approximately 13 crore names were struck off the electoral registers. The petitioner has sought a thorough and independent probe into this massive purge of voter data, requesting the appointment of a special investigation team or a judicial inquiry led by a retired Supreme Court judge. The plea goes further to request criminal proceedings against the Chief Election Commissioner and other responsible officials for their alleged failure to perform statutory duties. Forensic Evaluation of ECINet and ERONet Demanded Technical integrity has also been brought under judicial scrutiny. The petitions seek a comprehensive forensic audit of the Election Commission's primary technological frameworks, specifically the ECINet and ERONet systems, to inspect the proprietary software modifications applied during the roll revision process. The petitioners have asked the bench to direct the Chief Election Commissioner to produce the statutory grounds for exercising collective commission authority individually. To substantiate their claims, the petitioners have urged the Supreme Court to call for the original administrative files, internal file notations, and official minutes of commission meetings. Procedural Objections to Alterations in Registration Form 6 The petitions also challenge modifications introduced into Form 6, the standardized document utilized for new voter enrollment. The filings state that requirements compelling applicants to supply ancestry details and links to historical SIR entries were mandated through backend software updates rather than through formal statutory amendments to election rules. It is further highlighted that both companion election commissioners had formally placed their objections to these altered disclosure norms on record. Absence of Statutory Amendments and Array of Parties The petitions maintain that altering the scope and evidentiary requirements of a statutory enrollment form necessitates compliance with established rule-making procedures. Introducing onerous disclosure conditions purely via software programming, without amending the governing legal rules, is argued to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. To hold the administrative framework accountable, the litigation names the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, the Election Commission of India, Gyanesh Kumar, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu, Vivek Joshi, and senior election official Manish Garg as formal respondents in the proceedings. What this means for you This landmark judicial scrutiny could redefine institutional transparency and the procedural standards governing voter enrollment across India. • Voter Enrollment Rules: Citizens applying for new voter identity cards through Form 6 could see immediate changes in documentation requirements. If the court strikes down the software-mandated ancestral declarations, applicants will face simpler registration procedures. • Electoral Roll Accuracy: Citizens whose names were removed during revision drives could gain clarity on the legitimacy of large-scale deletions. Any court-mandated audit may pave the way for verifying and restoring improperly purged voter entries. • Institutional Accountability: The proceedings reinforce public trust by testing whether constitutional bodies must operate strictly through collegial consensus. Greater transparency ensures that election administration remains insulated from arbitrary decision-making. • Digital Platform Scrutiny: Scrutiny over portals like ERONet and ECINet establishes technical checks on how voter databases are managed. This safeguards the digital integrity of democratic voting systems nationwide. Why this happened The petitions arise from internal institutional friction within the poll authority and contentious administrative procedures adopted during the Special Intensive Revision drive. • Allegations of Unilateral Governance: The legal challenge centers on assertions that the Chief Election Commissioner acted independently of the two fellow commissioners. Petitioners argue that bypassing collective consensus violates the statutory multi-member mandate of the commission. • Repeated Internal Dissent: Records presented in the petitions indicate that companion commissioners lodged formal objections on at least 14 occasions across 10 months. These objections concerned roll revision directives and technical modifications enacted without their consultation. • Unamended Form Modifications: Controversy erupted over software-driven updates to Form 6 requiring ancestral linkages without amending statutory election rules. Petitioners contend that altering registration conditions through backend systems bypasses required legislative procedures. • Concerns Over Scale of Deletions: The purge of roughly 13 crore entries during the revision exercise prompted demands for an independent judicial investigation. The factual basis and legality of these deletions are currently pending judicial review before the court. Questions & Answers 1. What is the primary grievance in the petitions concerning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar? The petitions allege that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar made unilateral decisions regarding voter list revision without the formal consensus of fellow election commissioners. 2. Which Supreme Court bench is scheduled to hear these petitions? A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, will hear the matter on Monday, October 5. 3. What interim relief have the petitioners sought regarding the Commission's leadership? The petitioners have requested that Gyanesh Kumar be temporarily restrained from discharging his duties pending the final hearing, proposing that the other two commissioners run the body by consensus. 4. What demands have been made regarding voter roll deletions and election software? The pleas seek a judicial inquiry into the alleged removal of approximately 13 crore voter names and a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet software systems. 5. Why has the modification to Form 6 been challenged in court? The filings challenge backend software modifications that mandated ancestral declarations on Form 6 without formal amendments to the statutory election rules. https://trendkia.com/en/national/mukhya-nirvachana-ayukta-gyanesh-kumar-ke-kamakaja-ke-taura-tarikon-para-shirsha-adalata-karegi-ahama-sunavai-42909 TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.