---
title: "SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO SUSPEND CEC GYANESH KUMAR OVER ‘UNILATERAL’ DECISIONS; SEEKS RESPONSES FROM CENTRE, ECI"
url: https://mediathepower.com/supreme-court-refuses-to-suspend-cec-gyanesh-kumar-over-unilateral-decisions-seeks-responses-from-centre-eci/
date: 2026-10-05
modified: 2026-10-11
lang: en
author: "Rajiv Singh"
description: "New Delhi-The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an ex-parte interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, observing that it must first seek responses from the..."
categories:
  - "News"
image: https://mediathepower.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/sci.jpg
word_count: 371
---

# SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO SUSPEND CEC GYANESH KUMAR OVER ‘UNILATERAL’ DECISIONS; SEEKS RESPONSES FROM CENTRE, ECI

**New Delhi-The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass** an ex-parte interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, observing that it must first seek responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre regarding allegations that crucial decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken unilaterally.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued notices to the Union of India, the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, pressed for immediate interim directions, arguing that citizens' franchise rights were at stake. "The court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn," Singh submitted before the bench. He contended that the CEC acted contrary to the statutory framework by bypassing Section 18 of the CEC Act, which mandates unanimous or majority-based decisions in the multi-member body.

Singh alleged that 14 crucial decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken in the Commission's name despite recorded objections from the two fellow Election Commissioners between October 2025 and August 2026.

Declining to grant ex-parte relief, CJI Surya Kant questioned the feasibility of an immediate suspension, asking, "Who will conduct the elections?" if the Commission's functioning was brought to a standstill.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the court cannot determine whether all decisions were unilateral without first hearing the respondents. "If records show some decision was not unanimous, we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires. Can we ex-parte come to a decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner," Justice Bagchi noted, adding that orders cannot be passed solely relying on newspaper reports.

The apex court also tagged a connected petition filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy. Tripathi’s plea seeks the quashing of the 14 unilateral decisions and the constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases.