SIR row: Supreme Court refuses interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks EC response

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that several decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) were taken unilaterally.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Union government, the ECI, Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The court also sought responses from other officials named in the petitions.

The plea challenges the manner in which decisions connected to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were allegedly taken without the concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners

Petitioners allege unilateral decision-making

The petitions were filed following reports that around 14 decisions were taken in the name of the poll panel despite objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi. According to the allegations, the objections were raised between October 2025 and August 2026 over various aspects of the SIR exercise.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioners, urged the court to suspend Kumar immediately. He argued that the alleged conduct could undermine the functioning of the constitutional body.

“The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn,” Singh told the bench.

DON'T MISS: Kerala orders vigilance probe against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in 2006 engineer suicide case

The petitioners have also sought directions against the alleged decisions and questioned whether the CEC could exercise the ECI’s powers without the approval of the other Election Commissioners.

‘EC expected to take unanimous decisions’

The bench indicated that it would first examine the responses of the Election Commission and the Union government before considering further relief.

The court observed that the ECI is expected to function through collective decision-making. “They are expected to take unanimous decisions... if there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said.

The court further indicated that it could reconsider or recall decisions if it finds that they were taken without the required unanimity.

“After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back,” the bench said.

The refusal to grant interim relief does not settle the allegations against the CEC. The matter will be considered after the respondents file their replies.