New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court chose not to issue any provisional order against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions challenging his conduct and the decision‑making process of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the Court directed the Commission to submit a written response together with relevant documents before any further step is taken.

Court Requests the ECI’s Explanation 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 response to petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The judges clarified that they will assess the allegations only after receiving the Commission’s reply and supporting records. At this stage, no suspension, removal, or limitation of the Chief Election Commissioner’s duties has been ordered.

Core Contentions of the Petitioners

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 case is resolved, and requests that the Commission’s actions during that period reflect the unanimous view of the other two commissioners.

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

Disagreement Over Collective Decision‑Making

The petitioners rely on the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, contending that internal disputes must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority principle where appropriate. They claim that certain powers, which belong 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 maintains that all its orders are legally sound and that differing opinions 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. 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, is another flashpoint. The petitioners assert that the Election Commission introduced changes via election software—such as new requirements about ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises—without following the mandated legal procedure.

Regional Issues: 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 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 point. It awaits the Election Commission’s detailed response and accompanying records before deciding whether further judicial intervention is warranted. The Commission’s submission will be pivotal in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.