New Delhi: The Supreme Court is hearing two petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and raising questions over decisions taken during the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A three judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana is hearing the petitions filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and Delhi based advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
What Are the Petitioners Alleging?
- The petitions question whether the CEC could exercise certain powers individually when those powers, according to the petitioners, belong to the Election Commission as a multi member constitutional body.
- The petitions refer to alleged differences between CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
- The issue gained attention after reports that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of around 10 months concerning decisions and orders linked to the SIR exercise. According to those reports, the two commissioners said some decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
What Action Are the Petitions Seeking?
- One petition seeks the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC while the case is being considered.
- It also asks the court to examine decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications allegedly undertaken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners and, if found unlawful, declare them invalid.
- Another petition seeks an independent judicial inquiry or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- It also seeks appropriate criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials if violations of law are established.
Challenge to the SIR Exercise
- One of the petitions goes further and asks the Supreme Court to declare the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls invalid from the beginning.
- The petitioner argues that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission as a body, rather than giving those powers exclusively to the individual CEC.
- The petition therefore questions whether decisions allegedly taken without the concurrence of the other commissioners had proper constitutional and legal authority.
Form 6 and Electoral Software
- The petitions also raise questions about changes connected with Form 6, which citizens use to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls.
- According to one petition, certain requirements concerning ancestral details and links with previous SIR exercises were introduced through the Election Commission’s software without following the statutory procedure required to alter the prescribed form.
- The petition also raises concerns about electoral roll software and the handling of voter related appeals in states including Goa and West Bengal.
- These claims are part of the petitions and have not been established by the Supreme Court.
What Has the Election Commission Said?
- The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the CEC was acting outside the authority of the Commission.
- The ECI has maintained that individual views, observations and suggestions are a normal part of institutional deliberations. It has said that the Commission’s final decisions carry legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.
- According to the ECI’s response reported by PTI, the Commission has also said that its three members deliberations can involve differences of view, but that final decisions are taken through the established decision making process.
Has the Supreme Court Suspended Gyanesh Kumar?
No.
- The Supreme Court has not suspended Gyanesh Kumar, removed him from office or found him guilty of any wrongdoing.
- The court is hearing petitions in which the petitioners have requested such remedies and have raised allegations concerning the functioning of the Election Commission.
- Therefore, claims that the Supreme Court has already taken action against the CEC would be inaccurate at this stage.
Why Is the Case Important?
- The case raises broader constitutional questions about how India’s Election Commission functions as a multi member body.
- At the centre of the dispute is whether the CEC can independently exercise certain powers or whether decisions involving the Commission must be taken collectively in accordance with the Constitution and applicable law.
- The case is also significant because it comes amid an intense political and public debate over the SIR exercise and concerns about the inclusion and deletion of voters from electoral rolls.
- Opposition parties and protesters have accused the Election Commission of creating a risk of voter exclusion. The Election Commission and the BJP have rejected allegations of deliberate voter suppression and have defended the electoral roll revision process.
What Happens Next?
- The Supreme Court’s proceedings will determine whether the petitions are maintainable and whether the allegations and requests made by the petitioners warrant further judicial examination or any interim directions.
- The court may also examine the constitutional and statutory framework governing decision making within the Election Commission.
- For now, no finding of guilt has been made against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, and the allegations raised in the petitions remain subject to judicial consideration.
Business Galaxy will continue to follow the Supreme Court proceedings and report developments based on court proceedings, official statements and verified records.
