The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) over allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar may have exercised powers individually that are constitutionally assigned to the multi-member poll panel.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice to the Election Commission while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questioned the manner in which decisions were allegedly taken within the poll body.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, asked the Supreme Court to examine whether the Chief Election Commissioner had taken decisions on his own without the agreement of the two other Election Commissioners. It also sought appropriate legal action if such decisions were found to be unauthorised.
The court, however, made it clear that it could not reach a conclusion based solely on media reports. The bench said it would need an official and certified response from the Election Commission before determining whether any constitutional or legal provisions had been violated.
The judges observed that decisions of the Election Commission are required to be taken either unanimously or through a majority. The bench said it was proceeding on the assumption that this was the manner in which decisions had been taken by the poll panel.
The court also indicated that if it was established that decisions had been taken neither unanimously nor by a majority, those decisions could potentially be stayed.
“If it is found that the decisions were taken neither unanimously nor by a majority, they could be stayed,” the court said, while cautioning that it could not assume in advance that all decisions had been taken unilaterally.
The case comes after a report in The Indian Express alleged that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months. The reported disagreements were linked to issues including electoral rolls, voter registration and the Election Commission’s technology systems.
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that these objections represented institutional dissent over final decisions. The poll panel said questions, suggestions and inputs raised during the drafting stage were part of its normal administrative and decision-making process.
The ECI has also maintained that decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise were taken unanimously.
During Monday’s hearing, the Supreme Court questioned the petitioner over his reliance on the newspaper report. The petitioner argued that the Election Commission had not denied the allegations contained in the report.
The court responded that a newspaper report could be completely accurate, partly accurate or incorrect, and therefore could not by itself form the basis for an immediate judicial order.
The bench said it would first examine the Election Commission’s response and determine whether there were instances where the prescribed legal procedure was not followed. If violations were established, the court indicated that it could take steps to undo the affected decisions.
The case places renewed focus on the internal functioning and decision-making process of the Election Commission, with the Supreme Court now awaiting the poll panel’s response before proceeding further.
