The plea has sought that if CEC is found to have exercised collective authority without a decision of the Commission, then such exercise of authority should be declared invalid.

The Supreme Court has issued notice in the petition filed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar alleging that he took decisions unilaterally in the name of the Election Commission of India without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench has refused to issue directions to the Election Commission of India on taking its decision only by majority, despite the same being pressed by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Singh.

"We are dealing with a very grave situation today..we are known over the world for the way we conduct elections..today we are having a situation where the CEC is acting a manner completely contrary to the authority..your lordships should pass interim orders or this country will burn..," Singh told court today.

Pressing for interim order, Singh stated, "your lordships should order that till you hear the case, for the next ten days only decisions by majority should be taken..please put it in the order..that statutory scheme should not be violated.."

As the bench refused to do so, Justice Bagchi told Singh, "Lets not put the cart before the horse..can we come to a ex parte decision on this..let them respond to the notice.."

Last week, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh had mentioned the plea before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana which had agreed to hear the same.

"The purpose of having a multi-member Commission was that a decision be taken unanimously or by majority. Now, the way the Election Commission has functioned, there is serious doubt about whether there was a decision of the Election Commission for this entire exercise of special intensive revision. Because if the Commission has not taken a unanimous decision, then this... What the Court has also decided is on the basis that it is a Commission's decision. So it is a serious issue," Singh had said.

The Petition, drawn by Advocate Sudeep Gupta and filed through AOR Mudit Gupta, arises from a body of contemporaneous, written, on record material, namely file notings and formal communications by two of the three sitting Election Commissioners, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, addressed to the Commission's own officers and, on at least C two occasions, to the Cabinet Secretary of India, recording, between 28 October 2025 and 14 August 2026, at least fourteen distinct objections to steps taken in the name of the Election Commission without what the two Commissioners describe as the Commission's approval.

As per the petition, these objections concern communications and orders issued in the name of the Election Commission without the Commission's approval; an absence, for over a year, of agendas circulated before, and minutes circulated after, meetings of the Commission; foreign travel undertaken without the Commission's approval; a substantive change made in July 2026 to the statutory Form 6 despite an on file warning by Commissioner Joshi, concurred in by Commissioner Sandhu, that such a change could not lawfully be made without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; the alleged progressive centralisation, in the Commission's own IT establishment, of control over access to the ERONet/ECINet electoral roll database, said to bypass the statutory Electoral Registration Officers; a change to the internal work allocation order removing a layer of oversight over that IT establishment, made, the two Commissioners say, without their knowledge, and which they purported to strike down; and the filing of appeals, on behalf of the Election Commission, before Court constituted tribunals in West Bengal, without the two Commissioners being informed of who authorised those appeals or under what authority.

Accordingly, the plea seeks a writ in the nature of quo warranto in respect of Kumar who has purported to act, and continues to act, as though the powers vested by Article 324 in the Election Commission as a constitutional body were exercisable by him individually as its Chairman.

Case Title: Rakesh Singh vs Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: October 5, 2026

Tags: