SC issues notice to EC, its chiefs on Oppn plea seeking inquiry

The main notice asks the Election Commission of India and its three commissioners to respond to a petition seeking an independent, timebound inquiry. The petition raises alleged electoral irregularities, the functioning of the poll panel, and disputed decisions connected with the special intensive revision of electoral rolls.

The petition alleges that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted unilaterally on several occasions. It refers to a report that commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to Kumar’s decision-making 14 times over 10 months. The petition seeks records, an independent committee, and an interim suspension of the revision.

Raut, a co-petitioner, faced a separate provisional notice because of remarks made after the CJI declined to meet Opposition leaders. The court said the notice was not a condemnation and would consider his explanation at the next hearing.

The Election Commission of India, or ECI, is India’s constitutional election authority. Its core responsibility is to supervise elections and help ensure that electoral processes follow constitutional and legal requirements. The source focuses on the ECI’s decisions, internal functioning, and responsibility for electoral-roll revision.

In practical terms, the ECI manages the preparation and updating of voter lists used in elections. Those lists contain eligible voters’ records for particular electoral areas. Revising them can involve checking existing entries, adding eligible people, correcting details, and removing records that no longer qualify. The article specifically discusses a special intensive revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls.

The current dispute concerns whether the ECI’s decisions complied with safeguards under Article 324 and the 2023 law. The petitioners want an inquiry into disputed decisions, but they say they are not asking the court to reopen its ruling upholding Bihar’s 2025 SIR exercise.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a focused review of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to check whether voter records are accurate and current. The article identifies the June 2025 SIR exercise as one of the disputed decisions, but it does not provide a complete procedural description of how the review is carried out.

During such a revision, election authorities examine existing voter records. Records may be updated, corrected, added, or removed when the relevant legal requirements are not met. The article refers to Opposition concerns about deletion of millions of names and seeks production of files, agendas, minutes, notings, and objections connected with decisions about the exercise.

The petitioners are not asking the Supreme Court to reopen its decision upholding Bihar’s 2025 SIR. Instead, they want the court to examine whether individual implementation decisions followed constitutional and statutory safeguards. They also seek an interim suspension while an independent inquiry proceeds.

The petition alleges repeated disagreement inside the three-member Election Commission. It says Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions unilaterally, despite a legal framework that provides for majority decision-making when commissioners disagree. That allegation matters because the commission’s independence depends on decisions following constitutional and statutory safeguards.

The petition cites a media report claiming that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to Kumar’s alleged unilateral decision-making on 14 occasions over 10 months. It asks the Supreme Court to require production of complete files, agendas, minutes, notings, and the objections recorded by both commissioners.

The figures remain allegations placed before the court, not findings established by the judgment described in the article. The Supreme Court has issued notice to the ECI and the commissioners, so the respondents will have an opportunity to respond. The court will then consider the legal and factual issues.

If the Supreme Court temporarily suspends the ongoing revision, the exercise would be put on hold while the court considers the petition or while an inquiry takes place. The article says the petitioners specifically seek such an interim suspension. This could delay the revision and the updating of voter records, although the article does not state how long any pause would last.

The proposed inquiry would examine disputed decisions, policies, procedures, and technical architecture relating to electronic voting machines. The petitioners seek an independent committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts and civil society members. They also want complete decision-making records and objections from the commissioners.

The court has not yet ordered either an inquiry or a suspension. It has issued notice to the ECI and the three commissioners, giving them an opportunity to respond. Any later order could determine whether the revision continues, changes, pauses, or faces further review.

The Opposition leaders wanted to meet Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and submit a memorandum about the ECI’s functioning and the ongoing SIR. The CJI declined to meet them. The article says he indicated that their concerns could be raised through appropriate judicial proceedings instead of through a meeting with the court’s head.

That route provides a formal process in which a petition, respondents, documents, and legal arguments can be considered. The later petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and 12 other INDIA bloc leaders illustrates that approach. It names the ECI and the three commissioners and asks for an independent, timebound inquiry.

The decision triggered criticism from Sanjay Raut, who called the refusal a misfortune for the Constitution and democracy. The Supreme Court has now sought his explanation. It also issued notice on the main petition, so the concerns will be examined through the judicial process described by the article.

Article 324 provides the constitutional framework for the Election Commission’s authority and functioning. The article says the petition questions whether the alleged unilateral decisions complied with Article 324. This matters because election administration must operate within constitutional safeguards, rather than depending solely on one official’s choices.

The petition also invokes Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. According to the article, that section provides for decision-making by majority when the commissioners disagree. The alleged 14 objections by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are therefore central to the challenge.

These provisions do not themselves establish that a violation occurred. The Supreme Court has issued notice so the ECI, Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu, and Joshi can respond. The requested records and inquiry could show whether disputed decisions followed the required process and whether further directions are needed.