IN: Advocate Seeks AG Consent For Contempt Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

• Advocate Brajesh Singh has sought the Attorney General's consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
• The request is based on an investigative report alleging that CEC Kumar made significant decisions without the knowledge or concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
• Singh argues the CEC's conduct constitutes a "one-man autocracy" that defies Supreme Court rulings establishing the CEC as "primus inter pares" within the multi-member Election Commission of India.
• The legal basis for the request involves Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which requires AG consent for private citizens to file criminal contempt petitions.
• The advocate contends that compromising the electoral database's integrity also interferes with the administration of justice and ongoing judicial scrutiny.

The advocate's pursuit of criminal contempt proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, grounded in the principle of 'primus inter pares' established in cases like T.N. Seshan v. Union of India and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, reinforces the judiciary's expectation that the CEC operates collaboratively rather than autonomously.

An advocate has formally requested the Attorney General's consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. This significant development follows an investigative report that brought to light internal disagreements within the Election Commission of India (ECI), suggesting that major decisions were made without the knowledge or concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners. Advocate Brajesh Singh dispatched an email on September 24, seeking the necessary statutory consent from Attorney General R. Venkataramani.

Singh's submission contends that the CEC's actions represent a "one-man autocracy," directly contravening established Supreme Court mandates concerning the operational framework of the multi-member Election Commission of India. The advocate's plea is largely predicated on an investigative piece published in The Indian Express on September 23, 2026, authored by Ritika Chopra. This report detailed an ongoing internal rift, revealing that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had, over a ten-month period, formally documented written objections on no fewer than 14 separate occasions.

These objections specifically flagged instances where significant decisions, including those pertaining to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and modifications to voter registration Form 6, along with other administrative measures, were issued under the guise of the "full Commission" without the other commissioners' awareness or agreement. For example, Commissioner Joshi had warned in May that a proposed change to Form 6, requiring new applicants to declare family members on the last SIR electoral roll, could not proceed without a rule amendment. Joshi also raised concerns about the "gradual centralisation" of the electoral roll database, fearing it could restrict access for Electoral Registration Officers. Furthermore, Commissioner Sandhu questioned the authority behind filing appeals in West Bengal against orders that had reinstated voters to the rolls. Both commissioners reportedly escalated their concerns to the Cabinet Secretary regarding changes in work allocation implemented without their knowledge, with Sandhu explicitly recording certain changes as "unauthorised and illegal."

The advocate's request for criminal contempt proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar invokes specific legal provisions, namely Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alongside Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. These statutes stipulate that a private citizen must secure the consent of either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General before a criminal contempt petition can be formally presented to the Supreme Court. While no contempt petition has been filed yet, Advocate Singh's letter clarifies that such a petition will follow only upon the granting of this essential consent.

The grounds cited for contempt are multifaceted. Firstly, Singh argues that reducing a constitutionally mandated multi-member body like the Election Commission to a "one-man autocracy" fundamentally undermines the majesty and dignity of a vital constitutional institution. Secondly, the advocate asserts that such conduct constitutes a wilful defiance of binding Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, the request references landmark judgments such as T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). These rulings unequivocally established that the Chief Election Commissioner functions merely as "primus inter pares," meaning "first among equals," and therefore possesses no authority to override the decisions or input of the other Election Commissioners.

The third significant ground for contempt highlighted by Singh pertains to the alleged compromising of the centralized electoral database's integrity. The advocate posits that any such compromise directly interferes with the administration of justice and impedes ongoing judicial scrutiny of electoral processes, thereby warranting criminal contempt proceedings. In a statement accompanying his request, Brajesh Singh emphasized that the disclosures, particularly the documented objections from two of the three Election Commissioners regarding unauthorized decisions, point to a clear subversion of constitutional machinery within the Election Commission of India.

This development places renewed scrutiny on the internal decision-making processes of the Election Commission of India and the legal ramifications when a Chief Election Commissioner's actions are perceived as unilateral. The allegations, particularly the documented concerns from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, underscore the importance of the ECI's multi-member functioning as envisioned by the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The requirement for the Attorney General's consent for criminal contempt proceedings, as outlined in Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, highlights the serious nature of the allegations and the high bar for initiating such legal action.

The advocate's pursuit of criminal contempt proceedings against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, grounded in the principle of 'primus inter pares' established in cases like T.N. Seshan v. Union of India and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, reinforces the judiciary's expectation that the CEC operates collaboratively rather than autonomously. Should the Attorney General grant consent, and subsequent proceedings confirm the advocate's claims, it could set a significant precedent for challenging perceived subversions of constitutional bodies and their established operational norms. This situation serves as a critical reminder of the delicate balance required within independent constitutional institutions to uphold their integrity and public trust.

This development highlights the ongoing scrutiny of the Election Commission of India's internal decision-making processes and the legal implications of a Chief Election Commissioner potentially acting unilaterally. Lawyers advising on constitutional law, administrative law, or electoral matters should monitor the Attorney General's decision on consent and any subsequent contempt proceedings, as it reinforces the Supreme Court's 'primus inter pares' principle for the CEC and could set a precedent for challenging perceived subversion of constitutional bodies.

Source: Original reporting via The Indian Express.