Multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court against Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, leveling a series of allegations. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana is scheduled to hear the cases on Monday. The core allegation is that he unilaterally approved several crucial decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.

Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi have filed these petitions, claiming that Gyanesh Kumar made unilateral decisions on various matters—ranging from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls to modifications in the Election Commission's software.

The petition filed by Rakesh questions whether Gyanesh Kumar acted alone in making decisions that were supposed to be collective. He has urged the Court to declare such decisions illegal and take appropriate action. Additionally, the petitioner has requested that Gyanesh Kumar be removed from his duties as Election Commissioner pending the conclusion of the hearing.

The other petition was filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi. He alleges that several actions taken by Gyanesh Kumar violate the principle of collective decision-making mandated for the Election Commission. He has also sought the initiation of criminal proceedings against the Election Commissioner and other officials, alleging negligence in the discharge of their official duties. The petitioner cited Section 18 of the 'Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023,' which stipulates that the Election Commission must make decisions collectively; in the event of a difference of opinion among members, the majority view prevails.

He has also raised serious concerns regarding 'Form 6,' used for voter registration. The petitioner claims that details concerning parents and links to previous SIR exercises—elements previously absent—have been added to the form. He alleges that these changes were implemented via the Commission's software without making the necessary amendments to election-related rules. It is claimed that the other two Election Commissioners opposed these changes, arguing that such modifications to the form could not be made without following the prescribed legal procedure. Two lawsuits stem from a report by *The Indian Express*, which claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over the past ten months regarding the SIR and various other matters. The report alleged that these decisions were taken without their concurrence. However, the Election Commission has dismissed these allegations, stating that differences of opinion among members of an institution are natural during deliberations. The Commission maintains that every directive it issues holds legal validity and asserts that they are issued in strict compliance with relevant laws and regulations.