A Supreme Court advocate on Thursday (September 24, 2026) sought statutory consent of the Attorney General of India to initiate criminal contempt action against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar following a media report revealing a “complete breakdown of multi-member consensus within the Election Commission of India (EC)”.
Referring to The Indian Express report alleging “deep structural subversions”, advocate Brajesh Singh submitted that the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally registered written objections at least 14 times over the last 10 months.
“The Commissioners flagged numerous policy actions, including sweeping alterations to voter registration software, changes to Form 6, and the deletion/restoration of voter names under the Special Intensive Revision process as being ‘unauthorised, illegal’, and executed entirely without their knowledge or the approval of the full Commission,” Mr. Singh contended.
He submitted that the alleged actions/omissions by Mr. Kumar violated Supreme Court precedents, including T.N. Seshan versus Union of India and Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India, which mandate that the EC must function through institutional consensus.
Mr. Singh said the CEC was only primus inter pares or first among equals. He did not possess absolute authority.
“Bypassing fellow Commissioners to secretly issue public dictates under the banner of ‘full Commission’ constitutes willful defiance of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141,” the advocate said.
Mr. Singh said that by “reducing a constitutionally-mandated multi-member independent panel into a one-man autocracy, the CEC has scandalised and lowered the authority of the institution, directly threatening the free and fair elections doctrine”.
The prior consent of the Attorney General of India, a Constitutional authority, is mandatory before filing a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.
