NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is set to hear on October 27 a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the manner in which decisions have allegedly been taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The Court has issued notices to the Central Government and the Election Commission in connection with the plea. The matter comes amid allegations that certain decisions relating to electoral roll revision and other election-related processes were taken without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The three-member Election Commission currently comprises CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, according to the ECI’s official directory.
The Supreme Court’s intervention follows a hearing on October 5, when a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant indicated that decisions of the Election Commission could be examined for their compliance with the law. The Court observed that if any decision is ultimately found to have been taken contrary to the applicable legal framework, it could be set aside.
Court Refuses Interim Restraint on CEC
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought interim directions restraining CEC Gyanesh Kumar from taking further decisions and also sought his suspension.
The Court, however, declined to pass such an interim order at this stage. The Bench observed that suspending the CEC could bring the functioning of the Election Commission to a halt and questioned who would then conduct elections. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the two Election Commissioners could continue handling the work.
The Court made it clear that it would need to consider the responses of the Election Commission and the Centre rather than proceed merely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The plea essentially challenges the exercise of authority by the CEC and seeks scrutiny of decisions allegedly taken without a decision of the full Commission.
Read also: Supreme Court Says It Did Not Approve Modified Form 6, Seeks ECI Records in SIR Case
Supreme Court Clarifies It Did Not Approve Form 6 Changes
A significant part of the proceedings concerned alleged modifications to Form 6, the application used by eligible citizens for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll.
CJI Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modification to Form 6. The Bench said that once the relevant records are placed before it, it would examine who had authorised the changes.
The clarification is important because the issue has become a central point in the legal challenge surrounding the Election Commission’s handling of electoral roll revision.
The ECI, however, has maintained that Form 6 itself was not amended. According to the Commission, a separate declaration was added to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar. The Commission has also maintained that the SIR order was approved unanimously.
The ECI’s position is therefore at variance with the allegations raised in the petitions and reports concerning the manner in which the additional declaration was introduced.
What Is Form 6?
Form 6 is used by an eligible citizen to apply for inclusion of their name in the electoral roll. The ECI’s voter services portal currently provides Form 6 for new voter registration and separately provides a declaration form associated with the SIR process.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations indicate that it intends to examine the documentary record concerning the modification or addition and determine who authorised the change.
Allegations of Unilateral Decision-Making
The PILs before the Supreme Court allege that the Election Commission took a number of important decisions without obtaining the approval or concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
A recent report by The Indian Express claimed that CEC Gyanesh Kumar took around 14 decisions related to the SIR process without the consent of the other two Election Commissioners. The allegations are disputed, with the Election Commission maintaining that its decisions were taken in accordance with the applicable process.
The legal question before the Court is consequently not simply whether individual decisions were controversial, but whether they were taken through the decision-making mechanism required by law.
The Supreme Court indicated that if any decision of the Commission is found to have been taken contrary to the law or without the requisite decision-making process, the Court could intervene and annul it.
Rahul Gandhi Raises Form 6 Allegations; ECI Rejects Claim
Following the Supreme Court’s observations, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi alleged on X that the proceedings had established that CEC Gyanesh Kumar made illegal and unilateral changes to Form 6.
The Election Commission rejected this interpretation. It said that Form 6 itself had not been altered and that a declaration was added in the context of the Bihar SIR exercise.
The Commission also referred to its September 26, 2026 press release and maintained that the Supreme Court’s May 2026 judgment concerning the Bihar SIR had upheld the relevant declaration.
The distinction between a modification of Form 6 and the addition of a separate declaration is therefore likely to be an important aspect of the proceedings when the Court examines the records.
Bihar SIR and the May 2026 Supreme Court Judgment
The controversy is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, which was initiated by the Election Commission in 2025.
The ECI has stated that its SIR order was approved unanimously and that the Supreme Court, in its May 27, 2026 judgment concerning the exercise, upheld the relevant framework, including the declaration associated with Form 6.
The present proceedings, however, involve a broader challenge to the manner in which decisions were taken within the Election Commission and whether all such decisions complied with the statutory requirements governing a multi-member constitutional body.
What the Supreme Court Will Examine
The October 27 hearing is expected to bring greater clarity on the allegations surrounding the Commission’s decision-making process.
The Court has indicated that it wants the relevant records before determining who authorised the changes associated with Form 6. It will also consider the responses of the Centre and the Election Commission to the allegations concerning decisions allegedly taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
For now, the Supreme Court has not restrained CEC Gyanesh Kumar from functioning or taking decisions. Instead, it has sought responses from the concerned authorities and indicated that decisions found to be contrary to law can be subjected to judicial scrutiny.
The proceedings could therefore have implications for the interpretation of collective decision-making within the Election Commission as well as the legal procedure governing changes to electoral-roll forms and revision processes.
Read also: Why A Supreme Court Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Is Making Headlines Across India
