New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (October 5) refused to pass an interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The top court, however, issued notices to the Election Commission of India, the CEC and other two election commissions – Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – saying that the poll body is “expected to take unanimous decisions”.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana were hearing a batch of petitions seeking suspension and prosecution of CEC Kumar over his alleged unlawful and unilateral decisions, without the concurrence of the other two election commissioners during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.The petitions were filed in the context of the damning expose in The Indian Express that decisions were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi at least 14 times between October 2025 and August 2026, concerning various steps in the SIR process. Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for one of the petitioners, had sought suspension or divesting of the CEC’s powers pending hearing. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, in the connected plea, questioned the changes brought to Form 6 and alleged wider infirmities in the SIR process.Senior advocate Singh pressed for an order to suspend the CEC, arguing that it was “a grave situation which can undermine the very basis of our democracy”. “The country will burn,” Singh exclaimed, but the bench said that if the CEC is suspended, the ECI functioning will be stalled.“Who will conduct the elections?” it asked.“They are expected to take unanimous decisions…if there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority,” said Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, as quoted by LiveLaw. “There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo,” the bench said.Justice Bagchi said that if records show that any decisions were not unanimous, “we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires”. The court then issued notice to the poll body and its members, seeking an explanation from the election commissioners.Regarding the alleged misuse of Form 6, the statutory application for new registration, the top court distanced itself, saying it did not approve of any changes in the form available online.“Modified Form 6 has not been approved by us, let us be very clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified,” CJI Kant said.In its press note last week, the election commission had said that the old Form 6 will be used in “non-SIR” periods, defending the changes brought to the form for inclusion of new voters by saying that it had been upheld by the Supreme Court.The Wire has previously reported that the controversial change to the online Form 6 application, requiring applicants to map their parents’ details to the previous SIR, failing which they cannot proceed, was brought only in July, whereas the Supreme Court’s judgement was delivered in May.The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 that flows from the Section 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 require that any change or amendment to the form can only be made by the government and are subject to parliamentary oversight.Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh, reacting to the court order, alleged that Gyanesh Kumar “has not only lied but also violated the law and betrayed the Constitution in letter and spirit at the behest of the PM and the HM”.“The Supreme Court has a remarkable opportunity to restore public confidence in an institution vital to the integrity of our republic. As of now, the Supreme Court has chosen to seek a reply. It has chosen not to pass any interim order though,” he said in a post on X.“The Supreme Court has, in the past, trusted the ECI and the CECs to give a fair account of their running of the body. The Supreme Court would do well to note that that trust was based on decades of propriety and competent conduct starting with the late great Sukumar Sen, the first CEC who set the bar for how elections are to be conducted. None of that goodwill can be claimed by Gyanesh Kumar.“This malicious Form 6 modification, which was originally implied to have the Supreme Court’s approval, is one such example of his underhanded and simply indefensible conduct. In reality, the CEC has not only lied but also violated the law and betrayed the Constitution in letter and spirit at the behest of the PM and the HM,” he added.For our full coverage on the SIR and the issues it has brought to citizens, click here.