New Delhi, Sept. 30 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition that seeks to restrain chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from exercising his functions following reports that he unilaterally took decisions without the concurrence of the two election commissioners. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant agreed to have the case listed next week on a request by senior advocate Vikas Singh, who underscored that the decisions of the Election Commission of India have to be unanimous or by majority. "But the way the ECI has functioned raises doubts. If the ECI has not taken a unanimous decision, it is a serious issue," the senior lawyer said. The petition has also sought a direction from the court to call for complete records of the decisions taken during the period from October last year to verify the allegations. It said if the allegations are prime facie found to be true, the court could constitute a panel headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate the matter. The petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh cited the recent Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders of the Election Commission of India, including on additions, deletion and restoration of voters and changes to the voter registration process. In light of these revelations the petition sought preservation of all records, files, notings, etc and a direction that Gyanesh Kumar "shall not exercise the functions of CEC of India, pending final hearing of the present petition." It further required that the business of the ECI be transacted by the unanimous decision of the two election commissioners. The petition called to question the authority under which CEC acted unilaterally as Article 324 of the Constitution that governs ECI's functioning envisages collective decision-making power of the Commission, meant to be a multi-member collegial body. The petition also cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 which requires that in case of disagreement, the majority view should prevail. "If the power constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi member body can, in fact or in substance, be exercised by one office within it without the participation the Constitution and the 2023 Act require, then decisions that determine who is on the electoral roll, and therefore who may vote, raise a serious constitutional question as to whether such decisions are being taken by the constitutional authority the Constitution created for that purpose," the petition said. "Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of ChiefElection Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea stated. "Respondent No. 3 ought to be suspended from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner of India, pending final hearing of the present petition, so as to restore the multi-member character of the Election Commission," the plea said. The plea comes in the backdrop of a report in the Indian Express which claimed that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders on Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendationUnder fire over the red flags raised by two of its commissioners over the SIR process, the EC has asserted that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution and all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures. The petition has made the Union Law Ministry, the poll panel, CEC Kumar, Sandhu Joshi and Maneesh Garg, a senior official of the poll panel, as parties."This petition concerns not the fortunes of any individual constitutional functionary, but the constitutional identity of the Election Commission of India itself. Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not vest the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It vests those powers in 'a Commission'," the plea said. Referring to constitutional schemes, the plea said they "deliberately separated membership of the Commission from the chairmanship of the Commission, and separated the chairmanship of the Commission from the Commission's power".According to the petition, Sandhu and Joshi recorded at least 14 objections between October 2025 and August 2026 concerning various actions attributed to the Election Commission....