The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 29, 2026) agreed to list and hear early a petition challenging allegations regarding Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar's unilateral exercise of authority in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI), and seeking his suspension from office.

Appearing before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, senior advocate Vikas Singh and advocates Sudeep Chandra and Mudit Gupta, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, made an oral mentioning for early hearing of the plea which urged the court to direct that Mr. Kumar should not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner, pending final hearing of this petition.

The CJI agreed to list the petition next week.

The petition said the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, must conduct the business of the Election Commission of India (ECI) through unanimous decisions.

“Article 324(1) of the Constitution entrusts the conduct of elections to the Election Commission and not to an individual. Election Commissioners ‘must have a say in decision making’. To treat the Chief Election Commissioner’s word as final would render the Election Commissioners nonfunctional or ornamental. The Chief Election Commissioner does not enjoy a status superior to the other Election Commissioners merely by reason of the special protection governing his removal,” the petition quoted from the T.N. Seshan judgment of 1995.

The petition said any further appointment of CEC must be taken on the recommendation of a committee which includes the Chief Justice of India.

“Parliament has given statutory form to this collegial design. Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 provides that the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate its own procedure and the allocation of its business. The business of the Commission shall, as far as possible, should be transacted unanimously. Where the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, the issues shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority,” Mr. Singh submitted.

The petition said CEC Kumar has allegedly exercised power, not as Chairman of the EC, but as the Commission itself. “Section 18 of the 2023 Act and Article 324(3) gives him no individual title, he being Chairman of the Commission and not the Commission itself,” it noted.

The petition said whether the CEC could Act unilaterally, not either unanimously or by majority vote, needed to be examined. “Whether CEC possesses lawful authority to act, communicate, or issue orders in the name of the Election Commission without the collegial process mandated by Section 18 is a question of title to that authority, properly examinable by way of quo warranto,” the petition argued.

Referring to recent media reports, the petition urged the court to direct the EC to preserve all physical and electronic records relevant to the allegations of unilateral conduct by the CEC, including minutes, agendas, file notings, approval sheets, correspondence, work-allocation and delegation orders, IT-access records, server logs, audit trails, database-change histories, software deployment records and other records relating to the functioning of the Commission, ERONet/ECINet, the alteration of Form-6, the Special Intensive Revision and the filing of appeals before the West Bengal Appellate Tribunals, from October 1, 2025 till date during the pendency of the present proceedings.

The petition said no further substantive alteration be made to Form-6, and that no eligible citizen should be denied or prevented from seeking inclusion in the electoral roll solely for failure to furnish information contained in the disputed field.