The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Election Commission and the Centre on a batch of petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenging decisions allegedly taken without the approval of the other two election commissioners.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing pleas that questioned the manner in which the Election Commission, under Kumar, has taken certain decisions and issued orders.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The petitions allege that some decisions were taken without the concurrence of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The matter has gained attention amid reports of differences within the poll panel over decisions linked to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not pass an order solely on the basis of a media report. The bench said it needed a formal response from the Election Commission before determining whether the Chief Election Commissioner could exercise powers that are constitutionally assigned to the multi-member poll panel.
The court also emphasised that decisions of the Election Commission are required to be taken either unanimously or by majority.
The Election Commission and the Centre have been given a week to respond to the court’s notice.
The controversy follows a report claiming differences between Gyanesh Kumar and the two other election commissioners over decisions and orders connected with the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Election Commission has faced criticism over the issue, while the Centre has also been drawn into the dispute.
The Supreme Court, however, stressed that it would first examine the official position before reaching any conclusion.
During the hearing, the bench observed that a news report could be completely correct, partly correct or incorrect and therefore could not, by itself, form the basis for a judicial order. The court said it would want to hear from the concerned authorities before proceeding.
The judges also indicated that if any decision taken by the Election Commission is eventually found to be contrary to law, the court could annul it.
The petitions were filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. They have challenged decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of his two colleagues.
The petitioners have also raised questions over changes to Form 6, which is used in the electoral registration process. During the hearing, the bench said it wanted to examine the official record to determine who had made or approved any modification to the form.
The court’s observations indicate that the immediate focus is on establishing the factual and legal position within the Election Commission rather than deciding the allegations at this stage.
The matter will now return to the Supreme Court after the Election Commission and the Centre submit their responses.
