The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, refused to pass an interim order seeking the immediate suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, observing that judicial orders cannot be issued based solely on preliminary allegations. While evaluating a batch of public interest litigations challenging unilateral administrative modifications made to Form 6 voter registration declarations during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive, the apex court issued formal notices to the Union Government and the Election Commission to submit complete official records for detailed review. Addressing claims regarding recently altered voter enrollment protocols, the judicial bench clarified that the court had not authorized any unilateral changes to Form 6, directing poll authorities to ensure all internal procedures adhere strictly to statutory guidelines. Legal representatives for the Election Commission maintained before the court that digital revisions were strictly executed to purge duplicate records and streamline digital verification across state jurisdictions. Constitutional experts and legal commentators highlight that while the Supreme Court declined ex-parte interim relief against the poll chief, its decision to examine internal administrative records ensures rigorous judicial oversight over electoral management protocols.

Court Warns Against Ex-Parte Actions While Seeking Internal File Records

Addressing a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim prayers seeking his immediate suspension or removal from office. The petitions alleged that Kumar bypassed fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on key administrative orders during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant observed that the court cannot pass drastic ex-parte orders or halt the constitutional functioning of the election authority based solely on external media reports. However, the court issued formal notices to the Centre, the ECI, and the commissioners, requiring them to produce internal file notes and meeting minutes within seven days.

Overview: Primary Observations and Directives Issued by the Supreme Court

Judicial SubjectSupreme Court Verdict / ObservationLegal & Administrative Framework
Interim Relief PleaRefused interim suspension of CEC Gyanesh KumarAvoiding administrative vacuum in ECI leadership
Notice & Response Timeline1-Week Mandatory Response Window for ECI & CentreSubmission of internal file logs & dissent notes
Collegial AuthorityDecisions must align with unanimity or majority ruleSection 10 of Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023
Enforceability"If any decision is not in law, we will annul it"Article 142 & Judicial Review Powers

Judicial Warnings Against Non-Consensual Decision-Making

During arguments, petitioners pointed to reports indicating that over 14 dissenting notes had been registered by the two Election Commissioners regarding software changes on the ECINet portal and Form 6 modification directives.

Supreme Court Review & Verification Timeline: -------------------------------------------- Petition Filed vs CEC Orders ──> SC Refuses Interim Suspension ──> 7-Day Affidavit & Record Production ──> Judicial Audit of Consensus Logs

Responding to the allegations, CJI Surya Kant cautioned that the ECI is statutorily mandated to operate as a collegial body. "There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it," the bench orally observed. "If the records establish that decisions were taken without the required unanimity or majority, those decisions will be reconsidered and annulled."

Form 6 Clarification and Institutional Continuity

The court also clarified that its earlier May judgment had not given carte blanche approval for unilateral administrative additions to Form 6 online declarations. By refusing interim suspension while holding a strict review over the upcoming response, the apex court preserved administrative stability while setting up an audit of the poll panel's internal governance framework.