The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a plea raising questions over how decisions are being taken by the Election Commission of India under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The matter was mentioned before a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The plea puts the internal functioning of the poll panel before the country's top court at a time when the commission's handling of electoral roll revisions is already the subject of sharp political debate.

No hearing outcome or court observation on the merits has been reported so far, and the court has only agreed to take up the matter. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who mentioned the plea, submitted that under the statutory framework governing the poll panel, decisions of the multi-member Election Commission must be taken either unanimously or by majority. "The way the Election Commission is functioning, there is serious doubt over whether the decisions are unanimous," Singh told the bench. The source does not say whether the bench made any observation in response, or whether it issued notice to the commission or the Centre.

The submission is an argument made by the petitioner's counsel and has not been tested in court. The plea comes against the backdrop of a report by The Indian Express claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had, on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months, recorded objections to decisions and orders relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. According to the report, the two commissioners raised objections over orders they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs CBSE To Exempt Class 6 Students From Three-Language Policy

The claims are attributed to the newspaper's reporting, and the material provided does not independently verify them or include comment from Sandhu or Joshi themselves. The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the communications reflected differences over policy decisions. In a statement, the poll panel said the letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and did not relate to policy or IT division matters. The statement therefore disputes the characterisation of the letters, though it does not directly address the report's claim that orders were issued without the two commissioners' recommendation.

The source also does not say who filed the plea or what specific relief it seeks. The Supreme Court is expected to take up the plea next week. The hearing is likely to test whether the petitioner can substantiate the doubts raised over unanimity, and how the commission responds to the questions about its internal procedures. Further clarity may come from any documents placed before the bench and from the commission's formal reply, if the court seeks one.

Also Read: Supreme Court Asks Centre To Examine 18-Year Social Media Contract Rules