New Delhi, Sept. 26 -- A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of the two Election Commissioners, saying such actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making. The plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate Chand Qureshi sought a direction declaring such decisions unconstitutional, beyond the powers of the CEC and void if they were taken without the full Election Commission's concurrence or contrary to the majority view of the poll panel. Besides challenging the decisions allegedly taken without the required concurrence, the petitioner has sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials under provisions relating to breach of official duty. It even sought a judicial probe or an independent investigation by a special investigation team (SIT) into the deletion of over 130 million voters from the electoral rolls during the SIR process. As part of the probe, it even sought a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases used in the SIR process across 30 states and union territories. Till such investigation is carried out, it sought court's direction to preserve the server logs, databases, communications and metadata relating to ECINet and ERONet beginning from October 1, 2025 onwards. Section 32 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 provides that any act or omission in breach of official duty by a person required under the Act for preparation or revision of electoral roll shall be punishable with a term extending from 3 months to two years with fine. However, this provision further provides that no court is to take cognisance of any offence under this section unless on a complaint made or under authority from the ECI or the chief electoral officer of the state. The petition has specifically sought action against senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg and ECI Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna besides the CEC. Against them, the petition said that unauthorized work reallocation orders were passed by Garg on July 28 bypassing the Commission and attempting to "eliminate administrative oversight over the IT Division", which compelled the two ECs to petition the Cabinet Secretary directly. The petition cited the recent Indian Express report that stated on at least 14 occasions (including four occasions on a single day), the two Election Commissioners - Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to the "unilateral, unauthorised and illegal" decisions taken by CEC in the name of the Commission. Their disapproval was on crucial issues on new voters, restoring eligible voters and the appeals being filed challenging the inclusion of names in the West Bengal electoral roll. The petition cited section 18 of the CEC and EC (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 which provides that where the CEC and ECs differ, the matter is to be decided as per majority view. The petition said that the Election Commissioners had objected to the alteration of Form 6 (application for first time voters) in May 2026, with Joshi recording that the statutory form could not be amended without a corresponding amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Sandhu concurred with this view. Despite this, the Form 6 on the ECINet portal was subsequently modified to require a mandatory ancestral condition requiring the applicants to provide their relatives' presence in the previous SIR roll. The plea filed through advocate Chand Qureshi has urged the court to set aside all "illegal" modifications made to Form 6 with a simultaneous direction to restore the Form 6 in its original, unamended form. It further seeks quashing of the 1.6 million appeals pending before the election tribunals in West Bengal which have challenged the inclusion of names in the roll. It states, "The act of CEC Gyanesh Kumar deliberately manipulating the electoral roll bears no reasonable nexus or legal connection to his official duties; such an act falls squarely outside the ambit of official immunity and constitutes distinct, personal criminal liability." Although Section 16 of the 2023 Act bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against the CEC, this protective shield is restricted strictly to acts performed "in the discharge or purported discharge of official duty", the petition states. "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," it added. In such a scenario, 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, the petition argues. The BJP has rejected Rahul Gandhi's "vote chori" charge as "baseless" and said the Congress leader is merely trying to create "hype" over a media report on differences within the Election Commission because of his jealousy toward Prime Minister Narendra Modi and electoral setbacks his party has been facing. Addressing a press conference at the BJP headquarters on Thursday, party spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi also called Gandhi "prapanch shiromani (master manipulator)" and alleged that the PPT presentation the Congress leader made at his press conference on Thursday came from unknown and dubious sources. "All decisions (at the Election Commission) were taken unanimously. There is no evidence that the decisions were taken by majority," Trivedi said. The BJP leader questioned the authenticity of the report published in the Indian Express, contending that it does not have a comment, even off the record, from the Election Commission or any of the election commissioners....