The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenging decisions allegedly taken by the poll panel without the approval of the two other election commissioners.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is scheduled to hear pleas filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petitions also challenge decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Kumar without the concurrence of his two colleagues.
The PIL filed by Singh has urged the top court to determine whether Kumar individually exercised powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) as a whole and, if so, declare such actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
"Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India," the plea reads.
It has demanded Kumar’s suspension pending the final hearing to preserve the “multi-member character of the Election Commission”.
The plea comes against the backdrop of a report by The Indian Express claiming that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which they said had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Facing criticism, the EC said differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations in any institution, and that all its orders carried full legal sanction and followed established statutory procedures.
The petition has made the Union Law Ministry, the Election Commission, Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg parties to the case.
Tripathi’s plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, has alleged that the CEC’s actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making.
The plea has also sought the initiation of criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for alleged breaches of official duty.
“Divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity, the Chief Election Commissioner remains directly accountable under the law — subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an ordinary accused,” the plea states.
Tripathi has relied on provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, particularly Section 18, which provides for decision-making by the EC and states that where there is a difference of opinion, the view of the majority prevails.
One of the key issues raised in the plea concerns the alteration of Form 6, which is used by people to register as voters. It alleges that a requirement relating to ancestral details and a link with the previous SIR was introduced through the poll panel’s software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules.
According to the petition, the two election commissioners other than Kumar objected to the change and maintained that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.
"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio," the plea says.
Concerns over the handling of electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal have also been raised in the plea. It alleges that the software lacked a feature to restore 97 eligible electors in Goa despite directions for their verification.
In West Bengal, the petitioner has claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the EC’s name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.
The plea states that the other two election commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were unaware of, and had not authorised, these appeals.
(With inputs from PTI)
