Gyanesh Kumar and SIR petitions: What the Supreme Court will examine next

Two petitions before India’s Supreme Court question whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar acted without the required participation of the other election commissioners in decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls. At a hearing on October 5, 2026, the court issued notices seeking responses but declined to suspend Kumar immediately. The next step is for the Election Commission and other respondents to answer the allegations; the court has not decided whether any decision was unlawful or whether the SIR is invalid.

What does each petition seek?

Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh asks the court to examine the Election Commission’s original records and determine whether disputed decisions were made by the commission as a body. His petition argues that Article 324 of the Constitution gives authority over elections to the commission, not to its chair acting alone. It also invokes the 2023 law governing the commission’s work, under which decisions are to be unanimous where possible and made by a majority when members differ.

Singh seeks a declaration that decisions made without the legally required collective process are invalid. He also asks the court to declare the nationwide SIR and measures taken solely under it unlawful, while leaving intact voter-roll changes made through otherwise lawful procedures. As interim relief, he asked that Kumar be prevented from exercising the chief election commissioner’s functions while the case is heard.

The second petitioner, advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks to have allegedly unilateral SIR-related decisions, directions and software changes set aside. He requests an independent judicial inquiry or a special investigation team led by a retired Supreme Court judge, with technical experts, to examine electoral-roll systems and the circumstances of voter-name deletions. His petition also asks for action under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, against Kumar and other named election officials for an alleged breach of official duty. That request is an accusation in a petition, not a finding of misconduct or criminal liability.

Which voter-roll decisions are disputed?

The petitioners say Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions to steps taken in the commission’s name. Among the matters Tripathi raises are changes to the online version of Form 6, used to apply for inclusion on a voter roll; the handling of electoral-roll databases; difficulties restoring eligible voters through election software; and appeals concerning voter inclusion in West Bengal. His petition calls for an investigation into its claim that about 13 crore names were deleted during the SIR across 30 states and union territories. That figure and the suggested causes are claims for examination, not facts established by the court.

The Election Commission has disputed the suggestion that its final SIR decisions were unilateral. It has said its decisions, including those relating to the revision, were unanimous and that observations made while proposals were being considered should not be mistaken for disagreement over the final decisions. The petitions ask the court to test that position against the underlying records.

What happened at the October 5 hearing?

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard arguments for both petitioners and issued notices to the government, the Election Commission, Kumar and other respondents. Singh’s lawyer pressed for an immediate order suspending Kumar. The bench declined to make that order without first hearing the respondents and obtaining authenticated information. Its refusal to grant interim relief does not settle the underlying challenge in Kumar’s favour; equally, issuing notice does not endorse the petitioners’ allegations.

The judges indicated that the commission’s decision-making records would matter. When Tripathi’s lawyer raised the alleged alteration of Form 6, the chief justice said the Supreme Court had not approved a modified form and wanted to see what had been changed once the relevant information was produced. That was a statement about the court’s approval and its intended scrutiny, not a ruling that a particular official had changed the form illegally.

What happens next?

The Election Commission and government have been asked to respond within a week, and the matter has been reported as posted for a further hearing on October 13. The court can then consider the respondents’ account and the records before deciding whether any particular action requires an interim remedy or fuller examination. For now, Kumar has not been suspended through these petitions, and the court has not struck down the SIR or decided the requests for an inquiry or prosecution.