Challenge to powers of the Chief Election Commissioner

Case Description

Filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petition challenges what it describes as the “subversion of multi-member decision making” within the Election Commission of India (ECI). It concerns decisions and software modifications allegedly undertaken in the ECI’s name without concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners: Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The challenge follows an Indian Express report which recorded at least 14 formal objections made by Sandhu and Joshi over decisions concerning electoral rolls, Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll management. The objections included concerns over access to the ECI’s ECINet and ERONet systems.

The petition relies on Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests the superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls in the ECI, and Article 326, which provides for elections on the basis of adult suffrage. It invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 in relation to equality, political expression and civic dignity. Additionally, the petition refers to Article 361 to argue that the CEC does not enjoy personal immunity from criminal proceedings.

At the centre of the petition is Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. It says that the ECI may unanimously regulate the procedure for transacting and allocating its business among members. It further provides that ECI business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and that differences between the Commissioners are to be decided by majority. The petition relies on T.N. Seshan v Union of India (1995) to argue that the CEC is primus inter pares, or first among equals.

The next challenge concerns Form 6, the statutory form for voter registration. Petitioners submit that a question was added in July 2026 requiring applicants to provide details of their inclusion in the electoral roll after the last SIR. Joshi earlier recorded that Form 6 could not be changed without a formal amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, a position with which Sandhu concurred. The petition alleges that the digital modification was made without such an amendment and seeks restoration of the statutory form.

Regarding centralisation of the electoral-roll database through ECINet, the petition relies on Section 13B of the RPA, which provides for Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to prepare and revise electoral rolls. Joshi and Sandhu reported that a number of EROs are unable to access the database. Joshi objected to the “gradual centralisation” that occurs as a consequence, while Sandhu recorded that the Director General (IT) had “no legal authority” to restrict access of statutory authorities.

Another challenge concerns 97 electors in Goa. The petition states that after electors were found eligible by the local EROs, the ECINet system did not have a “rollback/reversal” facility to restore their entries. It refers to eight communications sent by the Goa Chief Electoral Officer in February 2026 seeking activation of the facility and alleges that the electors were ultimately left out of the final roll.

16.10 lakh appeals filed before Appellate Tribunals in West Bengal have also been challenged. These appeals were filed in ECI’s name against electors whose inclusion followed verification by Judicial Officers. The petition relies on Sandhu’s objection to unilateral authorisation of the appeals.

Invoking Section 32 of the RPA, the petition highlights criminal liability of officials for certain breaches of duty. It also refers to Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in support of its claims concerning participation in public life and elections.

The petition seeks, among other reliefs; 

1. the quashing of decisions and software modifications made unilaterally, 
2. restoration of ERO access to ECINet and ERONet, 
3. preservation of the systems’ digital audit trail, 
4. restoration of the 97 Goa electors, and 
5. constitution of an independent Judicial Inquiry Commission or SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts.

On 29 September 2026, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana agreed to list the petition next week after Senior Advocate Vikas Singh sought an early hearing.