Supreme Court to hear today two pleas against CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning, SIR

Today, the Supreme Court will hear two petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petitions demand a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into Kumar and others, as well as declaring the nationwide Service Instruction Register (SIR) of electoral rolls illegal. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will oversee the matter.

The petitions were filed after an article by The Indian Express revealed that ECI commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to decisions and orders related to the SIR of electoral rolls at least 14 times over the past ten months. Both commissioners alleged that some decisions were made without their knowledge or recommendation. They even wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, T V Somanathan, expressing concerns over the integrity of the voter software.

One of the petitions, filed by a Patna resident, Rakesh Kumar Singh, highlighted the alleged differences between Kumar and Sandhu and Joshi, as well as the objections raised by the commissioners. The petition argued that Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not grant the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to a single Chief Election Commissioner.

Instead, it vests those powers in a Commission. The petitioner contended that Kumar had claimed entitlement to exercise the decision-making authority of the Commission under Article 324 and Section 18 of the 2023 Act, despite having no individual title to that authority.

The other petition, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks an independent, high-powered judicial inquiry commission or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court. The petition refers to "unprecedented constitutional fractures and illegalities committed within the ECI under the CEC, as exposed by documentary records published on September 23, 2026."

The plea asserts that Kumar's actions are outside the scope of official immunity and constitute personal criminal liability.