SC warns ECI over unanimity, declines Gyanesh Kumar’s removal, says Form 6 was not approved

The Supreme Court on Monday declined pleas seeking an interim order for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that he had acted unilaterally against the other two Election Commissioners, questioning who would conduct elections in his absence, while directing the poll body to take unanimous decisions and clarifying that it had not approved the changes to Form 6.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, found issuing an order without hearing the respondents inappropriate, while seeking responses from the Election Commission of India (ECI), Kumar and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, within a week.

Seeking the suspension of CEC Kumar or the temporary withdrawal of his powers, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued in court for the petitioners that there was an alleged absence of concurrence of all its members in important decisions, particularly citing the ongoing SIR, which had already divested crores of citizens of their right to vote, but the Bench questioned the practical consequences of such an order.

“Who will conduct the elections?” the court asked, while Singh suggested that the other two Election Commissioners could perform the functions in the interim.

The Bench, however, signalled that the functioning of the constitutional body must conform to its collective decision-making framework. “They are expected to take unanimous decisions… if there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority,” CJI Surya Kant observed, according to LiveLaw.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi further reminded the Election Commission of the court’s power to cancel any decision and declare it ultra vires if decisions were recorded without unanimity or the required majority, and sought an explanation from the members of the poll panel regarding the allegations levelled against them.

The controversy has intensified following a report in The Indian Express, which alleged that decisions relating to the SIR process had been recorded in the ECI’s name despite objections from Sandhu and Joshi on at least 14 occasions between October 2025 and August 2026.

Meanwhile, on the approval of the controversial Form 6 with its modifications, including the mapping of applicants’ parents’ ancestral domicile, the court made it clear that the modified Form 6, which is currently available online, did not have its approval, as the ECI had earlier claimed, with CJI Kant adding that the court would examine the records to determine who had authorised the changes.

The ECI had earlier claimed that the additional declaration attached to Form 6 for the SIR process had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The court’s remarks on Monday, however, appeared to draw a clear distinction between its May 27 judgment upholding the SIR framework and the subsequent modification of Form 6.