A Supreme Court petition has challenged Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decision-making. The plea argues that the CEC bypassed the required collective consensus of the three-member Election Commission, violating the 2023 Act. The case highlights disputes over electoral roll software and administrative changes in Goa and West Bengal, seeking a judicial review of the poll panel's internal authority.
The Supreme Court has been approached to examine the procedural authority of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The petition, filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, challenges the current decision-making process within the Election Commission of India. The plea alleges that the CEC has acted unilaterally on important matters that require the collective approval of the three-member commission.
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The petitioner contends that under the current legal framework, the CEC is a first among equals and does not have the power to override the other commissioners. The plea points to specific instances where guidelines and software updates for the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were reportedly implemented despite formal written objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The legal challenge details specific grievances regarding election roll management. In Goa, the petition claims that digital systems failed to restore 97 eligible electors, despite specific internal directives. In West Bengal, the filing highlights over 16.10 lakh appeals filed in the commission's name against voters whose registrations had previously been restored by judicial officers. The petitioner argues these actions were taken without the knowledge or consensus of the other commissioners.
Further administrative concerns involve the modification of Form 6 for voter registration. The petition claims the commission introduced new requirements for ancestral details and linkage to previous revision cycles without the necessary statutory amendments. Additionally, the plea disputes a July 28 order regarding the reallocation of IT division responsibilities, claiming this administrative shift was carried out despite requests from other commissioners to withdraw it.
The legal filing requests the Supreme Court to declare these unilateral decisions unconstitutional. It also demands the preservation of critical data, including server logs and metadata related to the electoral management system, dating back to October 1, 2025. The petitioner is calling for an independent judicial inquiry to address these claims and clarify whether the CEC has the authority to bypass the majority consensus of the panel. This case brings the operational independence and internal governance structure of the Election Commission under judicial scrutiny.