The court declined to pass any interim order, while making clear that it can reverse commission decisions that were not taken unanimously or by majority. The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and the Centre, seeking their responses to petitions that demand the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The court did not approve any change to Form-6. The second phase will run from 10 to 20 October, with bike rallies, padayatras and cycle rallies at block level. The third will run from 25 October to 25 November. On 26 November, Constitution Day, six major yatras will set out from different parts of the country. Separately, the Cockroach Janta Party has announced an agitation at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 10 October, meaning the Congress and the CJP will pursue the issue on separate fronts.
Because doing so could affect the commission’s functioning, it refused to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner. The Congress has also announced the next phases of its campaign.
Arguing for the petitioner, counsel said the country was facing a grave situation that was undermining the foundations of democracy, and asked for an interim order suspending the Chief Election Commissioner. It also said that orders cannot be passed solely on the basis of media reports, and that the parties must be heard. The petitions sought Kumar’s suspension and the quashing of decisions he allegedly took alone. They also asked for an investigation by a special investigation team (SIT), headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, into the deletion of voters’ names during the SIR. It was claimed that, without such an order, the whole country could burn. The court replied that a suspension could bring the commission’s work to a halt, and asked who would then conduct elections. The key points from the hearing are as follows. It will, however, examine whether he took unilateral decisions by setting aside the views of the other commissioners, and such decisions may be quashed if necessary. The next hearing will follow the filing of responses. The Bharatiya Janata Party described the hearing as part of the judicial process. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court no power to suspend a Chief Election Commissioner. Only Parliament can remove him, through impeachment, in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge. The court can, however, examine the commission’s decisions and stay or quash any found to be contrary to law. The party appears to be turning the protest into a mass movement.
The Election Commission has said that no change was made to Form-6. In a press release on 26 September, it added that the declaration had the Supreme Court’s approval. Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, alleged that the Chief Election Commissioner had altered Form-6 illegally. It said it had unanimously issued the order for the SIR in Bihar on 24 June 2025, and that the Supreme Court upheld that order in its judgment of 27 May 2026.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the law already provides for this and that the court expected the commission to follow it. “If there has been any violation, we can reverse that decision as well,” he said. The court said it could not pass a one-sided order without hearing the parties concerned. It says a declaration was attached as an additional document, and that the decision was taken unanimously.
The petitioner then proposed that the court direct the commission to take decisions only unanimously or by majority. The petitioner added that the Chief Election Commissioner’s unilateral decisions had affected the electoral roll itself. If the record showed that a decision had not been taken unanimously or by majority, it could stay that decision. The court also expressed hope that the Chief Election Commissioner and the commission would respond clearly and transparently. The commission posted a fact-check calling his claim misleading. The Congress has stood by its allegations.
