'We know everything': SC to hear pleas against CEC Gyanesh Kumar on Nov 17

On November 17, the Supreme Court will examine the wider controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India. The court is considering petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the poll panel. The central issue is whether important electoral-roll decisions followed proper consultation and agreement among the three Election Commissioners.

The court will look at allegations linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Petitioners say some decisions may have been issued without the other two Commissioners’ concurrence. A separate plea by Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen alleges that Form 6 was changed during Bihar’s revision without Supreme Court approval. The ECI denies making such changes and says its decisions were unanimous.

The bench has given petitioners 10 days to file rejoinders to the ECI’s counter-affidavit. It also heard a request to preserve file notings and internal communications. Those records could help establish how decisions were made and whether objections were recorded. The hearing will resume after those filings.

The Election Commission of India is India’s independent constitutional authority for managing elections and maintaining electoral rolls. It oversees the administrative processes that determine how elections are conducted and how voter lists are prepared. The article identifies it as the poll panel involved in the disputed Special Intensive Revision and Form 6 decisions.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the head of the Election Commission, but the body also includes two other Election Commissioners. In this case, Gyanesh Kumar is the Chief Election Commissioner, while Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi are the other Commissioners named in the article. The petitions question whether decisions were taken with all three Commissioners’ agreement.

The controversy matters because the ECI’s authority depends on lawful, transparent procedures. Its affidavit says the decisions were unanimous and denies that Form 6 was changed. The Supreme Court will examine those claims, along with the alleged objections and decision-making process, when the hearing resumes.

The case involves three Election Commissioners in the disputed decision-making process. The article names Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and says the ECI’s decisions were supposed to involve all three Commissioners. It also names Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, who allegedly recorded objections to several decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision.

The Supreme Court hearing is being conducted by a three-judge bench. It comprises Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The bench is examining petitions that challenge the functioning of Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission. It has also issued notices in a fresh petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen.

Thus, the article describes two groups of three. Three Election Commissioners are connected with the administrative decisions under challenge, and three Supreme Court judges are examining those decisions. The court has postponed the next hearing to November 17, after petitioners file rejoinders to the ECI’s affidavit.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a thorough exercise to review and update electoral rolls. Electoral rolls are the official lists of people registered to vote. The article focuses on Bihar’s SIR because petitioners say decisions connected with it may have been made without full agreement among the Election Commissioners.

During such a revision, election officials examine voter information and process registration or correction requests. Form 6 is the statutory form used for voter registration, so its treatment matters directly to people seeking inclusion in the roll. If a person’s application is accepted, rejected, or handled under changed requirements, the person’s name may be included or left out of the electoral list.

The article does not detail every SIR procedure. It does show why the process has consequences: the petitions challenge decisions concerning the revision, while the ECI defends it. The Supreme Court will examine the decision-making, alleged Form 6 changes, and related records.

The main allegation concerns whether the Election Commission acted collectively. Petitioners challenging Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning say several decisions, including those linked to the Special Intensive Revision, were issued without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. They argue that the consultation process, not merely the final orders, must be examined.

The Indian Express report cited in the article said Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months. The report said they objected that decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi therefore asked the court to preserve file notings and internal communications.

The ECI disputes the allegation. In its 248-page affidavit, it said the decisions in question were unanimous and that the affidavit itself was approved unanimously by all three Commissioners. The Supreme Court has not resolved the dispute. It will examine the records and arguments after petitioners file rejoinders.

Form 6 is the statutory application form used for voter registration. It is connected to adding an eligible person’s name to the electoral roll. Because the roll determines who is officially registered, any change to the form or its requirements could affect how registration applications are submitted and assessed.

The issue arose during the Bihar Special Intensive Revision. Rajya Sabha MP Dola Sen’s petition alleges that Form 6 was changed without the Supreme Court’s approval. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy told the court that the ECI had wrongly claimed the changes were approved by the top court. The ECI’s affidavit rejects the allegation and maintains that no changes were made to Form 6.

The Supreme Court has issued notices to the ECI and other respondents on Sen’s petition. It will examine this question alongside the wider dispute over ECI decision-making. The significance is procedural: the court must determine whether the form remained unchanged and whether the ECI accurately described the court’s involvement.

File notings and internal communications are records of an authority’s decision-making process. They can show which officials considered an issue, what advice or objections they recorded, and how the final decision developed. Preserving them matters because a final order alone may not reveal whether consultation actually occurred.

In this case, Abhishek Manu Singhvi asked the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to preserve records related to the Special Intensive Revision. He argued that the dispute depends on whether decisions were unanimous or unilateral. The request follows allegations that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to decisions issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

Those records could help the court compare the allegations with the ECI’s affidavit, which says the decisions were unanimous. They can also support institutional accountability by making internal procedures reviewable. The article does not state that the records have been preserved or what they contain. The court will examine the broader issues at the next hearing.