New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court chose not to grant any provisional relief 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 along 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 formal 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 reviewing the Commission’s answer and accompanying records. No suspension, removal, or limitation of the CEC’s powers has been ordered at this stage.

Key Contentions of the Petitioners

The petitions allege that several rulings, which the law mandates to be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly issued 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 urges that the Commission’s actions during that period reflect a unanimous stance of the other two commissioners.

In a separate filing, Shailendra Mani Tripathi calls for criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, asserting that they have breached their statutory duties.

Dispute Over Collective Decision‑Making

The petitioners rely on the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, arguing that internal disagreements must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority rule where applicable. They contend that certain powers, which belong to the Commission as a whole, were exercised solely by the CEC, and they raise concerns about recent changes to election‑related software.

The Election Commission counters that all its orders are legally sound and that divergent views 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 claim that the two other Election Commissioners repeatedly voiced objections to specific SIR decisions over the past ten months.

Controversy Over Form‑6 Modifications

Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, forms another flashpoint. The petitioners argue that the Election Commission introduced alterations via election software—such as new requirements concerning ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises—without adhering to the prescribed legal procedure.

Regional Concerns: Goa and West Bengal

  • Goa: Petitioners assert that, although directions were issued to reinstate 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑enter their names.
  • West Bengal: The filings 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 proven at this juncture. It now awaits the Election Commission’s detailed response and supporting documents before deciding whether any further judicial intervention is warranted. The Commission’s submission will be decisive in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework mandated for the body.