The Supreme Court on September 29 agreed to list for the following week a petition questioning the Election Commission’s functioning under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and seeking to invalidate the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Chief Justice Surya Kant directed the early listing after counsel for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh asked for a prompt hearing.
The petition alleges that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions to decisions connected with the revision exercise. It argues that Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 18 of the 2023 law require the three-member Commission to decide matters unanimously or, where members disagree, by majority. These are the petitioner’s allegations and legal arguments, not findings by the Supreme Court.
The Election Commission has said that letters sent by the two commissioners to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and were not about policy or information-technology decisions. In an earlier response, the Commission maintained that decisions concerning the revision were taken unanimously. Those responses are materially relevant because the petition asks the court to inspect the Commission’s original records rather than accept either side’s public account.
The petitioner seeks a quo warranto inquiry into the CEC’s authority, production of the Commission’s primary records, and declarations that the revision and roll changes made solely under it are invalid. The court has not granted any of those remedies, issued a final judgment or stayed the revision in this proceeding. The September 29 development is an order to list the case next week, not a ruling that the CEC acted unlawfully or that any voter-roll change is void.