Supreme Court gives petitioners 10 days to respond to ECI affidavit in CEC Gyanesh Kumar case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted petitioners 10 days to file their rejoinder to the Election Commission of India's (ECI) counter-affidavit in a batch of petitions challenging the poll body's functioning under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The bench tentatively scheduled the next hearing for November 17.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing petitions alleging that several decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally, without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The proceedings follow the ECI's counter-affidavit, filed on Monday, in which the Commission denied allegations of unilateral decision-making and maintained that all decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously.

Petitioners seek preservation of internal records

During Tuesday's hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, urged the court to direct the preservation of file notings and internal communications relating to the disputed decisions.

Singhvi argued that the records were essential to establish whether the decisions had been taken unanimously or unilaterally.

"This whole issue depends on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decision was unanimous or not unanimous. Let file notings, etc be preserved," Singhvi submitted.

"We know everything, we will examine," Chief Justice Surya Kant replied.

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, representing Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, argued that the ECI's affidavit supported the petitioners' case. She alleged that the Commission had tampered with Form 6, which is used to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, and had issued a press release claiming that the Supreme Court had approved the changes.

Senior Advocate Dr Maninder Singh, appearing for the ECI, rejected the submission, describing it as rhetoric intended for an outside audience.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing lead petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought time to file a rejoinder to the Commission's affidavit. The bench granted the petitioners 10 days and tentatively listed the matter for November 17.

ECI denies unilateral decisions and changes to Form 6

In its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had independently taken decisions concerning the SIR despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners. It maintained that the Commission's decisions were unanimous and complied with the applicable constitutional and statutory framework.

The Commission stated that three orders relating to the SIR, dated June 24, 2025, October 27, 2025, and May 14, 2026, were unanimous decisions. It also said the counter-affidavit had been approved by the CEC and both Election Commissioners.

The ECI contended that observations, queries, suggestions and notes recorded by individual Commissioners during the processing of files did not, by themselves, constitute decisions of the Commission. It explained that files ordinarily move through the two Election Commissioners before reaching the CEC.

On Form 6, the Commission maintained that it had not amended the statutory form, arguing that only the Central Government could amend the form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It said the declaration introduced during the SIR was a separate document intended to facilitate the mapping of applicants to earlier electoral rolls.

The ECI acknowledged that the manner in which the declaration appeared on the online application platform could create the impression that Form 6 had been amended. It said the online application process had been divided into separate components for Form 6 and the SIR declaration from October 21, 2026, in line with the procedure followed for physical applications.

The Commission also said voters whose names could not be mapped to previous electoral rolls would not ordinarily need to attend hearings in person. Booth Level Officers would collect the necessary documents from their homes and upload them to the ECINet platform for consideration by the Electoral Registration Officer. Hearings would be required only in exceptional cases and should preferably be conducted online.

It further clarified that no name could be added to or deleted from electoral rolls through ECINet without an order from the competent Electoral Registration Officer. The Commission said a committee comprising experts from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras and the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, had been constituted to examine compliance with applicable requirements and review the platform's functioning.

The ECI argued that the petition was based on a newspaper report whose claims had not been independently verified with the respondents. It also said it had neither released nor authorised the release of internal notes to the media.

Pleas challenge CEC's functioning and seek suspension

The petitions question whether the ECI's functioning complies with Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

The challenges followed a report by The Indian Express alleging that at least 14 crucial decisions concerning the SIR were taken in the name of the Commission despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The petitioners have questioned whether decisions vested in the multi-member Commission could be taken unilaterally by the CEC. They have also sought scrutiny of the underlying records to establish how the disputed decisions were made.

The ECI, however, has argued that the plea seeking to prevent Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC is not maintainable. It has relied on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.

Apart from Rakesh Kumar Singh, the petitioners include advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, the Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief and MP Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh and West Bengal MP Dola Sen.

In the lead case, Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh versus Union of India and others, the Supreme Court issued notice on October 5 but declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar. The court had also issued notice to the Union government, the ECI, the CEC, Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna.

Supreme Court earlier refused to suspend CEC without hearing respondents

At the October 5 hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Rakesh Kumar Singh, had urged the court to grant interim relief, arguing that the allegations raised serious concerns about the functioning of the poll body and the protection of voting rights.

"The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn," Singh had submitted.

The bench expressed reservations about suspending the CEC without first hearing the respondents, observing that such an order could disrupt the functioning of the Election Commission.

"Who will conduct the elections?" the bench had asked.

Singh had suggested that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the Commission's functions in the interim. He also sought directions requiring the ECI to take decisions unanimously or, where unanimity was not possible, by majority, in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.

The court did not pass any interim direction at that stage.

Chief Justice Surya Kant had observed that the law governing the Commission's decision-making process was mandatory and that the court would undo any action found to violate the law. Justice Joymalya Bagchi had questioned whether the court could declare the disputed decisions unilateral through an ex-parte order without examining the relevant records and hearing the respondents.

The court subsequently issued notices to the concerned authorities and officials, seeking their responses before deciding the issues raised by the petitions.

The matter is now expected to return to the Supreme Court on November 17, after the petitioners file their rejoinders to the ECI's counter-affidavit.