Plea in Supreme Court seeks SIT probe against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, audit of poll body databases

A petition filed in the Supreme Court on Friday (September 25, 2026) sought the constitution of an independent, high-powered Judicial Inquiry Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired judge of the top court to probe allegations against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The plea said such an investigation must encompass, among others, an end-to-end audit of the Election Commission databases and probe the institutional circumstances under which 13 crore names were deleted across 30 States/Union Territories under the special intensive revision (SIR).

The plea filed by Supreme Court advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by advocate Chand Qureshi, submitted that Mr.

Kumar, in light of the allegations, would be divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity, the CEC remains directly accountable under the law — subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an “ordinary accused”.

Mr.

Tripathi argued that the allegations raised against Mr.

Kumar in an investigative newspaper report did not show any reasonable nexus with his official functions and responsibilities, and included tampering with the electoral roll.

The allegations constitute a cognisable offence under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Delhi SIR: Prominent names flagged for notices were marked ‘shifted’, ‘absent’ before records were changed under ‘mark VIP’ “Once the logical and legal coherence between the act and the official obligation ceases to exist, the doctrine of ‘reasonable nexus’ breaks down completely.

In the absence of this legal nexus, the statutory protection available under Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, becomes entirely ineffective,” the petition contended.

The petition was filed after The Indian Express reported that official files revealed that the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had formally recorded written dissents and objections on at least 14 separate occasions, including four times on a single day, over 10 months against “unilateral, unauthorised, and illegal decisions” taken and executed by Mr.

Kumar in the name of the Election Commission.

Opposition to move fresh notice for CEC’s removal; INDIA bloc mulls joint action The plea said the issue touched upon the very foundation of India’s constitutional democracy, free and fair elections, and institutional independence of the Election Commission of India.

The petition said the “illegal” acts included the unilateral alteration of the statutory Form 6 to introduce a mandatory ancestral condition or ‘last SIR linkage’ for first-time young voters without legislative authority or amendment of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960; disenfranchisement due to software failures; unauthorised subversion in West Bengal by filing over 16.10 lakh unauthorised appeals in the name of the EC to purge citizens restored by 700 judicial officers without the knowledge, authorisation, or sanction of the other two Election Commissioners or the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, etc.

Tripathi said the status of a public servant by itself did not confer legal legitimacy or protection upon malicious or criminal conduct.

“Intentionally manipulating records, committing forgery, or subverting the constitutional electoral process in the course of discharging official duties can under no circumstances be treated as an integral part of those duties,” the petition said.

CJP asks CEC Gyanesh Kumar to step down within 48 hours; warns of ‘Jantar Mantar 2.0’ From a constitutional standpoint, the petition argued that the CEC enjoyed no personal immunity from criminal prosecution.

Under Article 361 of the Constitution, absolute personal immunity from criminal proceedings and arrest during their tenure is conferred solely upon the President and Governors.

“Article 324 merely grants the CEC security of tenure (subject to removal), not immunity from personal criminal liability...

The Election Commission operates subject to the rule of law and is not a law unto itself.

Additionally, Section 16 of the 2023 Act contains no explicit bar against police investigation or arrest,” the petition submitted.

The petition said that even otherwise it was an established tenet of jurisprudence that “fraud unravels everything”.

“When voter lists are willfully manipulated in direct contravention of the constitutional mandate to conduct free and fair elections, such conduct falls outside the purported discharge of duty, rendering the legal shield of Section 16 inapplicable,” the petition contended.