New Delhi, September 24, 2026: A Supreme Court advocate has sought Attorney General for India R Venkataramani’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, alleging wilful disobedience of Supreme Court judgments governing the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Advocate Brajesh Singh, in a letter to Venkataramani on September 24, invoked Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
The move puts the spotlight on how decisions are taken within the three-member poll body and whether all its members have an effective say in the process, Live Law reports.
14 Objections Put Poll Body In Spotlight
Singh’s request follows a September 23 report by The Indian Express that said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over the previous 10 months to decisions allegedly taken without their knowledge or approval.
The issues included changes to Form 6, addition and deletion of names from electoral rolls and centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.
According to Singh’s letter, the two Election Commissioners had described several decisions as “unauthorised” and “illegal”. Singh alleged that the actions showed a departure from the constitutionally mandated functioning of the three-member Election Commission.
The Election Commission has rejected suggestions of a rift. It said differing views and observations were a normal part of institutional deliberations before a final decision and maintained that its decisions were unanimous.
Supreme Court Rulings At Heart Of Contempt Plea
A key ground cited by Singh is the alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in T N Seshan v Union of India. He contended that the ruling requires the Election Commission to function as a multi-member constitutional body, with the CEC acting as primus inter pares, or first among equals, rather than as an absolute authority.
The judgment held that the CEC could not be projected as being “mightier than the institution” and that decisions of a multi-member Election Commission were decisions of the Commission and not of its Chairman.
Singh also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India, which dealt with the constitutional framework concerning the Election Commission and emphasised the importance of an independent poll body for ensuring free and fair elections.
The contempt request alleges that bypassing the other Election Commissioners while issuing decisions or communications in the name of the “Full Commission” would amount to wilful defiance of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Voter Rolls And Database Access Under Scrutiny
Singh also claimed that changes to the electoral database and voter rolls without the involvement or approval of the other Election Commissioners could interfere with electoral processes and judicial scrutiny concerning electoral transparency.
The Indian Express investigation cited in the request reported that Sandhu and Joshi had raised concerns over the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database and questioned restrictions on statutory electoral authorities’ access to the system.
It also reported objections to a change in Form 6, the statutory form used for voter registration, after questions relating to the previous Special Intensive Revision were incorporated into the process.
The ECI, however, maintained that the issues raised by the Commissioners were operational queries, inputs and suggestions made at the draft stage and that final decisions were unanimous.
The Commission’s response makes its internal decision-making process central to the dispute, while Singh’s request seeks to turn the reported disagreements into a question of compliance with Supreme Court rulings.
Singh said the disclosures indicated a “documented subversion” of the constitutional machinery and argued that decisions allegedly taken by only one or two members could not be treated merely as internal administrative matters.
Attorney General’s Consent Is The Next Step
Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act provides for a motion for criminal contempt in the Supreme Court with the written consent of the Attorney General. Singh has sought that consent from Venkataramani.
If consent is granted, contempt proceedings may subsequently be instituted before the Supreme Court against Kumar. At this stage, however, the allegations remain claims made in Singh’s request and have not resulted in a finding of contempt against the CEC.
Also Watch:
The development comes a day after the Supreme Court, on September 23, referred petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger Bench. Justice Dipankar Datta, in his separate opinion, expressed prima facie doubts over the independence of the present selection process.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
