The Supreme Court on Monday (5 October 2026) refused to pass an ex parte order suspending Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar during the hearing of a petition that specifically sought his suspension, as reported in OpIndia.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined the petitioner’s request for an immediate suspension and refused to pass any interim order without first hearing the respondents, including the CEC.
The Bench issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sindhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg IAS and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
The petition was filed by Advocate Rakesh Kumar through Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.
Senior Advocate Says “Country Will Burn” If Court Does Not Act
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pressed the Supreme Court to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar without first giving him an opportunity to respond.
Singh argued that the situation was grave and sought immediate interim intervention from the Court.
“We are dealing with a grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy. The elections were conducted with the ECI having some respect. But today we are having a situation where the CEC is acting in a manner which is completely contrary to the statutory framework,” the senior advocate claimed.
“The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn,” he said.
“Some interim measures are needed as every citizen was now feeling unsafe about their voting rights,” Singh asserted.
The plea for an ex parte order effectively sought to have the Court take action against the CEC before hearing his side. However, the Bench declined to bypass the respondents and insisted that they be heard before any such interim relief could be considered.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh is the same person who represented the DMK government during the Deepathoon issue when he said the judge was trying to create a religious issue when none existed. He had also mocked Justice GR Swaminathan and spread fake news about him wanting to contest elections.
SC Questions Claim That CEC Took Decisions Unilaterally
Singh alleged that the electoral roll prepared after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was vitiated, claiming that certain decisions relating to the electoral roll had been taken unilaterally by CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned how it could arrive at such a conclusion without first hearing the CEC and examining the relevant records.
“If records show some decision was not unanimous, etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra vires. Can we ex parte come to the decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi said.
CJI Surya Kant also told Singh that the Court could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
The observations came as the Bench made it clear that allegations regarding the functioning of the Election Commission would have to be examined through the records and responses of the concerned authorities rather than through an ex parte order.
Petitions Allege 14 Objections By Election Commissioners
A number of petitions are currently before the Supreme Court alleging that several decisions were taken by CEC Gyanesh Kumar unilaterally, despite the other two Election Commissioners raising at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026.
The petitions have been filed amid a sustained political campaign against the SIR exercise undertaken by the Election Commission.
Opposition parties have organised demonstrations and protests targeting the government and the CEC, while petitions have also been filed before courts seeking intervention in the electoral roll revision process.
The demand for an immediate suspension of the CEC, coupled with the submission that “the country will burn” if interim orders were not passed, was made in this broader backdrop.
Opposition Has Targeted SIR Since EC Announced Exercise
Ever since the Election Commission announced the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise across several states, Opposition parties have repeatedly raised allegations against the process.
They have opposed the exercise through protests and litigation, questioning the manner in which electoral rolls are being revised.
The SIR exercise is intended to update electoral rolls and remove bogus, invalid and ineligible entries from voter lists. The exercise has resulted in the deletion of large numbers of voters found to be ineligible, including illegal immigrants, a development that has become a major political flashpoint.
Opposition parties have alleged that the exercise could affect their electoral prospects and have sought judicial intervention to halt or restrict the process.
Several Opposition politicians and activists have also approached the Supreme Court challenging the SIR exercise.
However, the apex court has declined to halt the exercise, observing that electoral roll revision is a routine process and that the Election Commission is constitutionally empowered to undertake it.
The latest hearing therefore saw the Supreme Court refuse to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar without hearing him, while issuing notice to the Election Commission and other concerned respondents.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
