Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar Faces Supreme Court Probe Over SIR Roll Deletions
A petition was filed today in the Supreme Court seeking to remove the personal immunity of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and order a police investigation into alleged illegal alterations of Form 6 and the electoral roll. The move challenges the statutory protection under the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and raises questions about the independence of India’s election machinery. The petition cites written dissent from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on at least 14 occasions, including 16.1 lakh unauthorized voter deletions reported in West Bengal.
On this page▾
- •On Friday, 25 September 2026 a petition was lodged in the Supreme Court seeking a criminal investigation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- •The plea alleges that the CEC unilaterally altered electoral rolls, deleted 13 crore names under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and acted beyond the protection afforded by the Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023.
- •If the Court accedes, the CEC could be stripped of personal immunity and tried like any ordinary accused.
On Friday, 25 September 2026 a petition was lodged in the Supreme Court seeking a criminal investigation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea alleges that the CEC unilaterally altered electoral rolls, deleted 13 crore names under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and acted beyond the protection afforded by the Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023. If the Court accedes, the CEC could be stripped of personal immunity and tried like any ordinary accused.
The Supreme Court Petition: What Is Being Asked?
The petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and represented by Chand Qureshi, calls for an independent, high‑powered Judicial Inquiry Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. It seeks a full audit of the Election Commission’s databases and a probe into the deletion of 13 crore voter entries across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise.
- ▸Filed on 25 September 2026, the day after media reports surfaced.
- ▸Targets CEC Gyanesh Kumar for alleged “unilateral, unauthorised, and illegal decisions.”
- ▸Demands removal of statutory immunity and a police‑led investigation.
Legal Foundations: Immunity, Accountability and the Statutes
Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023 grants the CEC statutory protection, but the petition argues that such protection evaporates when actions lack a “reasonable nexus” with official duties. Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 defines tampering with electoral rolls as a cognisable offence, while the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provides a parallel penal framework. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Election Commission of India enjoys superintendence of elections, yet this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
- ▸Section 16 shields the CEC only for acts performed within official remit.
- ▸Section 32 criminalises unauthorised alteration of electoral registers.
- ▸Article 324 vests the EC with the duty to ensure free and fair elections.
Alleged Procedural Breaches: SIR and Unauthorised Appeals
The SIR drive, intended to cleanse the electoral roll, allegedly saw the removal of 13 crore entries without legislative amendment of Form 6 or the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Over ten months, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi lodged 14 written dissents against such unilateral moves. In West Bengal, more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed to purge voters restored by judicial officers, a step taken without the knowledge or sanction of the other commissioners or the Chief Electoral Officer.
- ▸14 written objections recorded by the two other Election Commissioners.
- ▸16.10 lakh unauthorised appeals filed in West Bengal.
- ▸SIR affected voter rolls in all 30 states/UTs.
Did You Know? The 13 crore deletions represent roughly 10 percent of India’s total electorate, a scale unprecedented in any previous roll‑cleaning exercise.
Institutional Repercussions: Checks, Balances and Future Safeguards
Should the Supreme Court endorse the petition, it would set a landmark precedent that the CEC is not above criminal law, reinforcing the principle of accountability enshrined in the Constitution. A judicial inquiry could prompt legislative amendments to clarify the scope of Section 16 and tighten procedural safeguards for future SIR operations. Moreover, the episode has already sparked public protests, with 40‑50 demonstrators detained at Jantar Mantar, and political leaders like K.C. Venugopal branding the CEC’s actions “illegal and unconstitutional.” The outcome will shape the balance between electoral autonomy and democratic oversight.
- ▸Potential amendment of the Chief Election Commissioner Act, 2023 to define limits of immunity.
- ▸Supreme Court’s authority to order inquiries reinforces judicial oversight of constitutional bodies.
- ▸Public dissent underscores the political stakes of electoral integrity.
Tags
Log in to like, comment, and join the discussion.