Supreme Court refuses to suspend Gyanesh Kumar and issues notice on the SIR pleas

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar before hearing the Election Commission. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on pleas that say Kumar took Special Intensive Revision decisions in the commission's name after the other two commissioners had recorded objections.

The court did not fix a return date in the accounts of the hearing published on Monday afternoon. Notice went to the Union of India, the Election Commission, Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna. LiveLaw rendered Sandhu's name as Sindhu. Other reports of the same bench used Sandhu, the spelling on the commission's own record.

What the bench would not do from the newspaper

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, told the bench the court had to pass interim orders, "otherwise the country will burn." He said the commission once conducted elections with a measure of public respect, and that Kumar was now acting contrary to the statutory frame. He added a warning the bench did not adopt: the court could not later undo an election, or undo an elected government.

Chief Justice Kant answered that there is a mandatory law and that the court expects the commission to follow it. "If there is any violation, we will undo," he said. Justice Bagchi was more specific about the limit of Monday's order. If the record later showed a decision was not unanimous, the court could injunct that decision and call it ultra vires. It would not, on an ex parte hearing, treat every SIR decision as unilateral. The commission, he said, was expected to respond in a clear and transparent manner.

The Chief Justice also refused to build an interim order on press reports alone. "The Court cannot pass an order solely relying upon newspaper reports," he said. That line matters because the petitions rest on an Indian Express account that two commissioners recorded objections at least 14 times between October 2025 and August 2026, while decisions continued to go out in the commission's name.

Two petitions, two remedies

Rakesh Kumar Singh's petition is W.P.(C) No. 1246 of 2026. It asks for a declaration that a multi-member commission cannot decide alone, for the court to examine the primary record, and for Kumar's suspension while the case is heard. A second petition, W.P.(Crl.) No. 401 of 2026, by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, goes further. It seeks quashing of the 14 decisions, a judicial inquiry or special investigation headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, and a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases.

Tripathi's plea also asks for a prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which punishes breach of official duty in the preparation, revision and correction of rolls. The named officers are Kumar, Garg, Khanna and others. The petition alleges an unauthorised change to Form 6, the application for new registration, a centralisation of roll databases, a failure to restore eligible voters through ECINet, and the filing of 16.10 lakh appeals in West Bengal challenging inclusions, in the commission's name. It also cites a figure of 13 crore names removed across 30 states and Union territories during the revision. Those numbers are allegations in the petition. The bench has not adopted them.

The Wire reported that the Chief Justice was plain about Form 6. "Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified," he said, on that account. The court has been supervising parts of the revision in other proceedings. Monday's remark, if it holds in the order, separates a form the court has not cleared from the wider fight over who inside the commission may sign a decision.

The statute the petitioners are using

The pleas rely on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. That section provides for collective decision-making, with the majority view prevailing where the three members differ. The petitioners say a recorded objection cannot be buried inside a decision that still carries the commission's name. The commission's public line, repeated in coverage of the hearing, is that differences are part of deliberation and that its orders have legal sanction.

Section 16 of the same Act gives the chief election commissioner a form of protection for acts done in official duty. Tripathi's criminal petition tries to get around that protection by framing the conduct as a breach under the 1950 Act rather than as a policy disagreement. Whether Section 16 blocks that route is one of the questions notice will now force the Union and the commission to answer.

The political week around the hearing

Monday's order landed inside a week of street protest. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called Kumar a liability for the country over the revision. Delhi police had already detained demonstrators trying to reach Jantar Mantar. In Mumbai, Raj Thackeray and Uddhav Thackeray led a march against the chief election commissioner. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking outside this bench, said any process that disenfranchises millions would be arbitrary and a negation of the constitutional order. His remarks are not an order in these petitions. They are part of the public argument the court will now hear in pleadings rather than in speeches.

The practical effect of Monday is narrow and, for the petitioners, disappointing. Kumar remains in office. The revision is not stayed. What changes is the record the commission must now produce: who objected, on which of the 14 steps, and whether Form 6 in current use is the form the court has seen. If that record shows a split that Section 18 did not resolve by majority, Justice Bagchi has already described the remedy. The court can injunct the decision. It will not do that from a clipping.