By Arun Srivastava
The question why did the Supreme Court hesitate to take action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar for defaming its image by making a statement that a declaration attached to Form 6 (used for registering new voters) had been “upheld by the Supreme Court” has been haunting the social and political circles. On October 5, 2026, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant strongly contradicted the ECI’s claim, stating, “Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear.”
The Supreme Court has the legal authority to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against anyone, including the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), under Article 129 of the Constitution if it determines that a statement wilfully scandalizes or lowers the authority of the court. Surprisingly in this case, the apex court chose to issue formal notices and seek replies rather than taking suo motu contempt or punitive actions. The press statement of CEC was in every manner a relevant document and Gyanesh could not deny that he had not issued it.
By attributing the modifications to Form 6 to the Supreme Court (SC), while it strongly refuted this allegation in its October 5 observation, undeniably Gyanesh had committed “criminal act”. His action has serious implication; either he thinks himself superior to C JI Surya Kant or has been under instruction to do whatever he intends to do or not to bother the apex court. Gyanesh was rightly accused of executing an “illegal and unilateral” modification to Form 6, the opposition leaders, specifically by Rahul Gandhi . They allege that by adding strict ancestral and previous-SIR linkage declaration mandates to the online portal, the CEC overstepped legal authority. The Legal pleas filed against Gyanesh argue that these actions fall outside his official duties, strip him of immunity, and constitute a “criminal assault on democracy” that warrants a formal trial.
While hearing the petitions, the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant explicitly distanced the judiciary from the alterations, but it has miserably failed to erase the element of suspicion from the minds of the common Indians. They rightly seek to know why the Supreme Court did not issue a notice or took suo motu action just after Gyanesh issued the press release. If CJI Surya Kant had not agreed to all the declarations of Gyanesh, probably this situation might not arisen when Justice Surya Kant had to say, “Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear.”
There is no denying C JI Surya Kant allowed himself to be dictated by Gyanesh. Even the SC’s notices are unlikely to mend his manners and functioning. It would not come as a surprise if Gyanesh comes out with some flimsy and false clarification. Gyanesh has already strongly rejected the criminal allegations. The ECI clarified that it did not “change a single comma” of the statutory Form 6 itself. Instead, the commission attached a separate, temporary supplementary declaration page for regions undergoing the SIR process. They maintained their reference to the Supreme Court was based on a May 2026 judgment that originally upheld the baseline framework for the Bihar SIR exercise.
In all fairness the Supreme Court should have asked Gyanesh to submit his resignation, as the possibilities could not be ruled out that, enjoying the patronage of home minister Amit Shah, he would temper with and manipulate the records and evidences. Two days after expose of his functioning, Gyanesh managed to have two other ECs by his side and declare that was fine in the Commission. The primary dispute centres on allegations that Gyanesh Kumar took unilateral decisions on crucial election-related matters without the approval or consensus of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The other two commissioners had raised recorded objections on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period. These included unilateral changes to Form 6, modifications to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, database centralization, and the filing of voter list appeals. His unilateral actions violate the multi-member constitutional functioning established by historic Supreme Court rulings.
Gyanesh Kumar has the habit of misleading the apex court. Earlier he had claimed that launching of SIR exercise was the decision of the Commission. But now it transpired that Gyanesh had unilaterally implemented the decision of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. Yet another issue was his insisting that SIR was a legal and constitutional tool, which is absolutely wrong and false submission. The exact words “Special Intensive Revision” do not explicitly appear in the text of the Constitution of India or within its designated parts. Under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Election Commission (EC) has clear guidelines for regular voter roll verification. They argue that forcing mass re-verification or demanding citizenship-like proof acts as an administrative overreach that can lead to mass disenfranchisement.
EC cannot use its administrative powers to create entirely new, substantive document requirements for voters without a law passed by Parliament. No doubt Article 324 of the Constitution grants the Election Commission absolute superintendence, direction, and control over the preparation of electoral rolls and maintains that “purifying” the voter list is a direct fulfillment of this constitutional duty. But it does not lay down SIR as the proper and effective tool. It is not the SIR, instead IR (intensive revision) is an administrative title for a house-to-house audit. It was expected of Supreme Court that it should have adopted the pragmatic approach towards SIR.
Had it been a constitutional provision, certainly Supreme Court sitting Justice Ujjal Bhuyan would not have strongly criticized the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, calling any process that results in mass voter deletion “intrinsically arbitrary”. Delivering a address at the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan emphasized that mass disenfranchisement strikes at the heart of the Indian Constitution, violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 326 (Universal Adult Suffrage). He remarked that it acts as a “negation of the constitutional order.” Significantly he asserted that the Constitution does not envisage two distinct classes of citizens—those who have the right to vote and those who do not. Stripping away this right, he noted, reduces individuals to “second-class citizens in their own country.” He directly stated, “No amount of whataboutery can justify it.”
It is a tough proposition to make out who is right; Justice Bhuyan or CJI Surya Kant. Of course it is a sound argument that SIR is constitutionally valid since it advances the democratic objective of ensuring free, fair, and accurate elections. But in reality, just opposite has been happening. SIR has created a new class of second citizens who does not have voting rights and would be declared persona non grata, not an Indian citizen. SIR would turn Indians, an alien object, in their own country, which is certainly against the basic spirit and tenet of Constitution. The most interesting has been CJI also emphasised that the Election Commission’s discretion under Article 324 is broad but not absolute, meaning it must always be exercised within reasonable bounds to avoid arbitrary disenfranchisement.
There is a famous phrase justice delayed is justice denied. In Gyanesh’s case it is exactly happening. Justice is being denied. While the Supreme Court expressed “serious doubt” over whether proper Commission decisions were made, it refused to pass an interim order to suspend the CEC, stating that it cannot take such extreme actions based solely on newspaper reports. It has demanded an official explanation and accountability from the ECI. The ECI’s press release certainly was not merely a newspaper report. It was the official statement of Gyanesh. The newspapers carried and printed Gyanesh’s statement. If the printed statement was wrong, why did Gyanesh not rebut it?
Gyanesh had been behind the façade of constitutional functioning has been denigrating and devastating the democratic institution and its ethos and unfortunately he is not getting punished for his criminal act. Gyanesh bypassed fellow commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to make unilateral decisions under the banner of a “full commission”. How could he get exonerated for misrepresenting the court’s stance. Fine. Apex court has given him one week time to reply to its notice.
The Supreme Court made it clear that if the official records eventually establish that the statutory framework was violated or that the court was misrepresented, it retains full power to annul those decisions or take appropriate legal action. Now it is conclusively proved that SIR has been brain child of Gyanesh and he implemented it at the behest of his political boss Amit Shah to disenfranchise Dalits, poor and Muslims, CJI should have ordered to stop the exercise and allow the old system to be operative. The ongoing legal battle over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has become highly contentious, drawing sharp criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups who argue it has led to mass disenfranchisement and procedural overreach.
While critics label the irregularities as a severe flaw or “fraud”, the Supreme Court of India has taken a more nuanced legal approach, upholding the policy framework in principle. Gyanesh has succeeded in deleting around 18n crores of voter’s name using the posture of Supreme Court. Instead of waiting for Gyanesh’s reply, apex court should have asked him to male room for other person and directed the two other ECs to verify the records and place the facts before it. SC cannot inspect the ECI’s actual meeting records. It has to depend on some other person, certainly not Gyanesh. Court has already issued notices to the Centre, the ECI, and CEC Gyanesh Kumar, demanding a formal explanation and compliance report within one week. Obviously it would be fair to have the documents by some other person or persons. Nevertheless the CJI noted that once the official records and reports are produced, the court will closely examine “who has modified what” before deciding if further legal or punitive measures are necessary. Let us hope for the best in the interest of democracy and country. (IPA Service)
