During the October 2026 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, posts claimed he had signed on behalf of the other two commissioners or forged their signatures. There is no evidence for this: no petition, court record or credible report alleges forgery. The actual allegation is that orders were issued in the Commission's name "without approval".
Claim: CEC Gyanesh Kumar signed for Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, or their signatures were forged.
Said by: Social media posts.
What the record shows: The petition now before the Supreme Court alleges decisions issued without the other commissioners' approval. It does not mention signatures or forgery. LawBeat
Where the claim came from
Claim · Indian Express investigation Around 23 September 2026 the paper reported that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded at least 14 objections in 10 months to decisions they said were taken without their knowledge. ThePrint The report set off the Cockroach Janta Party's campaign for Kumar's resignation and protests in Delhi from 2 October. Al Jazeera
As the story spread, some posts restated "decisions without approval" as the CEC signing for his colleagues or forging their signatures. We could not trace the forgery claim to a named person or a specific original post.
What the evidence shows
Documented On 5 October 2026 a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice in Rakesh Singh v. Union of India. The petition relies on file notings and letters from Sandhu and Joshi, dated 28 October 2025 to 14 August 2026, describing at least 14 objections. LawBeat
The objections listed are: orders issued in the Commission's name without its approval; no agendas or minutes for over a year; foreign travel without approval; a July 2026 change to Form 6; central control of the electoral-roll database; a change to work allocation; and tribunal appeals in West Bengal without the commissioners being told who authorised them. LawBeat None involves signatures.
No evidence No credible report, petition or fact-check alleges forged signatures of the commissioners. The only signature-forgery reports in the SIR story concern Form 7 objections filed in ordinary voters' names. The Wire
Claim · ECI Commission sources said all decisions, including on the SIR, were unanimous and approved by all three members. The Week The court refused interim orders, with Justice Bagchi saying: "Lets not put the cart before the horse." LawBeat
Context
Section 18 of the 2023 Act says the Commission's business shall "as far as possible" be unanimous, otherwise by majority. Act, s.18 Whether Kumar acted without approval is a serious, documented allegation now before the court. Forgery is a separate criminal claim no one has formally made. See our SIR and CEC protests page.
Questions people ask
Did Gyanesh Kumar forge signatures?
No petition, court record or credible report says so. The allegation is that orders were issued without the other commissioners' approval.
What did the two election commissioners object to?
At least 14 matters between October 2025 and August 2026, including orders issued without approval, a Form 6 change and control of the voter database.
What did the Supreme Court do on 5 October 2026?
It issued notice to the respondents but refused interim orders, including a request that decisions be taken only by majority for ten days.
Sources
- LawBeat: SC issues notice on plea against CEC, no interim orders, 5 Oct 2026
- ThePrint: Election commissioners flagged issues, Sept 2026
- The Week: ECI denies one-man autocracy allegations, 23 Sept 2026
- The Wire: Inside the ECI's war on the franchise, 2026
- Al Jazeera: Cockroach movement demands election chief's resignation, 25 Sept 2026
- Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, s.18
