Plea in SC seeks prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions in ECI
New Delhi, September 25
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decision-making in the Election Commission of India (ECI), including changes to Form 6, centralisation of electoral-roll data through ECINet and actions allegedly resulting in exclusion of eligible voters.
The plea also names Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, DG-IT Seema Khanna and other officials for alleged breaches of official duty.
The plea refers to an Indian Express report published on September 23, which, according to the petitioner, brought out documentary records showing that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded written dissents and objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026. The petitioner says the records also showed that no full-Commission meeting was held for over four months and that orders were issued unilaterally.
The petitioner alleges that Form 6 was changed on the ECINet portal to make disclosure of last SIR details mandatory for first-time voters. He says this was done despite the two Election Commissioners recording that the statutory form could not be amended without a formal amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Defying this binding majority, Respondent No. 3, acting in concert with Respondent No. 6 (DG-IT), altered Form 6 digitally on the ECINet portal in July 2026, the plea reads.
The plea says Commissioner Sandhu subsequently recorded that the change was unauthorised and illegal and ordered its withdrawal.
The plea further alleges that ECINet centralised control over electoral-roll data in New Delhi and restricted the ability of field-level Electoral Registration Officers to access or modify data. It says an external audit by IIT experts proposed by Commissioner Joshi was not acted upon.
It also alleges that 97 electors in Goa, who had been found eligible for inclusion in the rolls, could not be restored because ECINet lacked a rollback/reversal facility. The plea says the Goa CEOs office sent eight communications seeking activation of the facility, but the software was not rectified.
In West Bengal, the petitioner alleges that 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the name of the ECI against electors whose inclusion had been restored by judicial officers in the SIR exercise. The plea alleges that the two other Election Commissioners and the West Bengal CEO had no knowledge or authorisation for these appeals.
The petitioner alleges that the appeals amounted to an attempt to disenfranchise voters whose names had been restored through the judicial process.
The plea also alleges that Maneesh Garg issued an order on July 28 altering oversight of the IT division. It says Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi approached the Cabinet Secretary, describing the move as a clear violation of Section 18, before jointly setting aside the order.
The petitioner relies on Section 18(2) of the 2023 Act to argue that where the Election Commissioners differ, the majority opinion must prevail. The plea alleges that the Form 6 changes and IT centralisation were undertaken despite the 2:1 position recorded by the other two Commissioners.
The petitioner has specifically sought directions to the competent statutory authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act against Gyanesh Kumar, Maneesh Garg, Seema Khanna and other officials found guilty of deliberate breach of official duty.
Issue appropriate directions to the competent statutory authority to register complaints and initiate prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against Respondents No. 3, 5, 6 and all other officers found guilty of deliberate breach of official duty, the plea asks.
The plea also seeks quashing of the Form 6 modifications and the 16.10 lakh West Bengal appeals, restoration of decentralised ECINet and ERONet access to EROs, preservation of the digital audit trail, and restoration of the 97 Goa electors and other similarly placed voters.
It further seeks an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with cybersecurity and IT experts from IITs, to conduct a forensic and administrative audit of ECINet and ERONet. The proposed inquiry, the plea said, should be asked to investigate the circumstances in which 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States/UTs during the SIR and identify those responsible for the 16.10 lakh appeals and alleged work-allocation subversions.
Responding to the Indian Express report, the Election Commission, in a statement on September 23, said that all orders by the body carry full legal sanction and any queries raised by members at the stage of drafting procedures were standard practice.
, “The ECI is a constitutional body that functions under the strict mandate of Article 324 of the Constitution, statutory rules and established institutional conventions. The Commission operates as a multi-member constitutional body. Written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances are standard, ongoing practices designed to ensure complete transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour. All actions of ECI have been in accordance with laws and instructions of the Commission, it said.
All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures, the statement said. (ANI)