Case Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar: 'Otherwise The Country Will Burn', No Ex-Part Order But Supreme Court Issues Notice To Election Commission of India

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an immediate ex-parte order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, ruling that a constitutional authority cannot be penalised without giving respondents an opportunity to present their defence.

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, issued notice to the Union Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) on petitions challenging unilateral decision-making powers exercised by the poll chief.

Petitions Challenge Unilateral Powers Under 2023 Law

The legal challenge centres on allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar bypassed fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi while executing key decisions regarding Special Summary Revision (SIR) procedures and electoral roll alterations.

Appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that the ECI framework under the 2023 Act removed essential checks and balances present in earlier statutory models. He told the court that the CEC pushed through decisions in at least 14 instances between October 2025 and August 2026 despite written dissents recorded by both fellow commissioners.

Pressing for an interim stay, Vikas Singh warned the Bench about rising public skepticism surrounding poll management. "The credibility of the ECI has been so undermined that every citizen is feeling unsafe. The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn," Singh argued, adding that the poll chief had become more powerful than any other constitutional authority.

Bench Refuses Ex-Parte Relief, Queries Statutory Rules

During oral exchanges, Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the petitioner on specific legislative shifts from previous precedents. When Vikas Singh pointed out how the 2023 Act altered previous judicial safeguards established under rulings like Anoop Baranwal, CJI Surya Kant inquired, "What is the substituted provision?"

Addressing demands for the immediate removal of the poll panel head, CJI Surya Kant indicated that the court would not grant ex-parte interim suspensions against a constitutional head without examining primary records and hearing government counsel. The Bench noted that allegations concerning procedural breaches in a multi-member body require measured judicial scrutiny following due legal process.

Demands For Independent Probe And Primary Record Review

The petitions, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, request comprehensive judicial intervention in the administrative operations of the poll body.

The petitioners are seeking a binding declaration that decisions by the ECI must have mandatory concurrence among all members. They have also requested a full court-supervised inspection of internal ECI records from late 2025 to mid-2026 to evaluate statutory compliance.

Additionally, the pleas demand the setup of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, alongside cybersecurity experts, to investigate operational lapses and quash the 14 contested orders. The apex court has directed the Union Government and the ECI to submit their formal responses before the next date of hearing.