New Delhi: The Supreme Magistrate held an important hearing on Monday regarding allegations versus Chief Referendum Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for tangibly taking decisions without the consent of the other two members of the Referendum Commission. A three-member seat headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant refused to pass an interim order on the demand for firsthand suspension of Gyanesh Kumar. However, the magistrate has issued notice to the concerned parties including the Referendum Commission and the Center and sought their response. The magistrate made it well-spoken that first the records and the reply of the concerned parties will be seen, only then will a remoter visualization be taken on the allegations.
Did CEC take decisions bypassing other referendum commissioners?
It has been so-called in the petitions that some important decisions related to SIR i.e. Special Intensive Revision were taken by the Chief Referendum Commissioner without the consent of other Referendum Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petitioners personal that decisions should have been taken collectively within the Commission, but in some cases this was not the case. On the understructure of these allegations, there has been a demand to suspend the powers of the CEC and cancel the decisions tangibly taken.
Why did the Supreme Magistrate refuse to grant interim relief?
The Supreme Magistrate said that firsthand whoopee cannot be taken versus the throne of a ramble institution merely on the understructure of media reports. The magistrate first wants to see the response and official records of the Referendum Commission and other concerned parties. The seat moreover indicated that if records prove that a visualization was taken undisciplined to the prescribed procedure, the magistrate can take whoopee versus it.
Why did it come to the question of taking decisions by majority?
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that in a multi-member soul like the Referendum Commission, decisions are expected to be taken unanimously. If consensus is not reached then the visualization can be taken on the understructure of majority as per law. The magistrate has asked the Referendum Commission to sieve the situation regarding pursuit this procedure.
What will be the decisions if rules are violated?
The seat indicated that if the records of the Referendum Commission reveal that any visualization was taken undisciplined to the prescribed procedure or law, the magistrate can set it aside. That is, no visualization has been immediately supposed illegal in Monday's hearing; rather, the magistrate has sought ECI's reply and related records for remoter investigation.
What did the Supreme Magistrate sieve regarding Form 6?
During the hearing, the issue of changes made in Form 6 related to voter registration was moreover raised. CJI Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Magistrate has not tried any revised Form 6. The magistrate said that without the records come out, it will be seen who made the changes in the form and under what process. This issue has moreover been raised in the petitions filed regarding the SIR process.
How many objections are personal in the petitions?
The petitioners, citing a media investigation report, have personal that between October 2025 and August 2026, objections were filed at least 14 times by the two other referendum commissioners in SIR-related matters. However, the Supreme Magistrate has not yet wonted these claims as facts and has therefore sought an official reply and records from the Referendum Commission.
What will happen next now?
The Supreme Magistrate has sought answers from the Centre, Referendum Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar and other concerned officials. The magistrate will now squint at the records and replies to see whether the decisions in question were in vibrations with the law and the prescribed visualization procedure of the Commission or not. At present no interim order has been given to suspend Gyanesh Kumar.
