New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court refrained from granting any urgent relief against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions that question his conduct and the decision‑making framework of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the court instructed the Commission to submit a written response and the pertinent records before any further step is taken.

Court Wants the ECI’s Version First

The three‑judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and joined by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, issued a notice to the Election Commission in answer 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 reviewing the Commission’s reply and supporting documents. No suspension, removal, or limitation of the CEC’s powers has been ordered at this stage.

Petitioners’ Core Allegations

The pleadings argue that several decisions, which the law mandates to be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly made unilaterally by the CEC. Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks an interim order preventing Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner until the matter is finally resolved, and urges that the Commission’s actions during that period reflect the unanimous view of the other two commissioners.

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 rule where applicable. They claim that certain powers, which belong to the Commission as a whole, were exercised by the CEC alone, and they flag concerns about changes to election‑related software.

The Election Commission counters 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 Scrutiny

The petitions also spotlight the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Relying on 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 Changes

Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, is another flashpoint. The petitioners assert that the Election Commission introduced modifications via election software—such as new requirements about ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises—without following the legally mandated procedure.

Regional Cases: Goa and West Bengal

  • Goa: Petitioners claim that, although instructions were issued to restore the names of 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑add them.
  • West Bengal: The petitions cite more than 1.61 million appeals related to the state’s electoral‑roll process.

Next Steps After the EC’s Reply

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