The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre, seeking their responses within a week to a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar allegedly took decisions without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, reported PTI.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh and issued the notices.
The bench said decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or taken by majority, and said it presumed that all decisions were taken in this manner, PTI reported.
The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, has urged the Supreme Court to determine whether CEC Kumar individually exercised powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole and, if so, declare such actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action, according to PTI.
The plea has also sought a direction that Kumar not exercise the functions of the Chief Election Commissioner pending final adjudication of the petition. It further sought that, during this period, the Commission's business be transacted by the unanimous decision of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee including the Chief Justice of India, PTI reported.
The plea comes against the backdrop of reported differences within the poll panel over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Indian Express had reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the preceding 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR, saying they were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission, facing scrutiny over the objections raised by the two commissioners, had said differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations in any institution. It maintained that all its orders had full legal sanction and were issued in accordance with established statutory procedures.
This is a developing story
(With inputs from PTI)
