New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court refused to grant any immediate relief against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions challenging his conduct and the decision‑making framework of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the Court has instructed the Commission to submit a written response together with pertinent documents before any further judicial step is taken.

Court Seeks the ECI’s Written Version First

A three‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and joined by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, issued a formal notice to the Election Commission in response to petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The judges made it clear that they will assess the allegations only after the Commission’s reply and supporting records are on file. At this stage, no suspension, removal, or limitation of the Chief Election Commissioner’s powers has been ordered.

Core Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitions argue that several actions, which the law mandates to be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly decided unilaterally by the CEC. Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks an interim direction that bars Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner until the case is resolved, and that the Commission’s operations during that period reflect the unanimous view of the other two members.

In a separate filing, Shailendra Mani Tripathi requests criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, alleging breaches of their statutory duties.

Dispute Over Collective Decision‑Making

The petitioners invoke the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, contending that internal disagreements must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority principle where applicable. They claim that powers belonging to the Commission as a whole were exercised solely by the CEC, and they raise concerns about changes to election‑related software.

The Election Commission, for its part, maintains that all its orders are legally sound and that divergent views among members are a normal feature of any deliberative body.

Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Under the Lens

The petitions also spotlight the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Citing a media report, the petitioners allege that the two other Election Commissioners repeatedly objected to specific SIR decisions over the past ten months.

Controversy Over Form‑6 Modifications

Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, emerges as another flashpoint. The petitioners contend that the Election Commission introduced alterations via election software—such as new requirements concerning ancestors’ details and links to earlier SIR exercises—without following the legally mandated procedure.

Regional Grievances: Goa and West Bengal

  • Goa: Petitioners claim that, although directions were issued to reinstate 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑add them.
  • West Bengal: The filings reference more than 1.61 million appeals related to the state’s electoral‑roll process.

What Comes Next After the EC’s Reply

The Supreme Court has not treated the allegations as established facts at this juncture. It now awaits the Election Commission’s detailed response and accompanying records before determining whether any further judicial intervention is warranted. The Commission’s submission will be decisive in assessing whether the disputed actions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.