Supreme Court Refuses to Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar Ex Parte, Issues Notice on Plea Challenging ECI Decisions
The Supreme Court has refused to pass an ex parte interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that several important decisions of the Election Commission of India were taken unilaterally during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre, the Election Commission and other concerned officials.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh challenging the manner in which certain decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, were allegedly taken within the Election Commission.
The petition followed reports alleging that 14 important SIR-related decisions were taken in the name of the Election Commission despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitioner sought immediate intervention against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and argued that the Election Commission is constitutionally required to function as a collective body rather than through decisions of the Chief Election Commissioner acting alone.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, urged the Court to pass interim directions, arguing that the issue concerned the voting rights of citizens and required immediate judicial intervention.
The Bench, however, declined to suspend the CEC without first hearing the respondents. The Court indicated that an ex parte order could potentially disrupt the functioning of the Election Commission and raise questions about who would conduct elections if the CEC were suspended.
The Court instead chose to seek the official records and responses of the Election Commission before determining whether any statutory or constitutional violation had actually occurred.
The Bench also referred to the statutory requirement governing the manner in which the Election Commission conducts its business. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, decisions are to be taken unanimously as far as possible, and where unanimity is not possible, by majority.
The Court indicated that if the records ultimately establish that particular decisions were neither unanimous nor supported by a majority, it could reconsider those decisions.
The Chief Justice observed that the Court would not treat newspaper reports as conclusive evidence and wanted authenticated information from the Election Commission before taking any substantive view.
The Court also issued notice to Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna, apart from the Union government, the ECI and CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
A connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi was also taken up. That petition seeks, among other reliefs, an independent inquiry into the alleged unilateral decisions and challenges actions attributed to the CEC during the SIR exercise.
Another important issue emerged during the hearing concerning Form 6, which is used for applications for inclusion of names in electoral rolls.
Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6. The clarification came after concerns were raised regarding an additional declaration introduced in the online Form 6 process during the ongoing SIR exercise.
The Court indicated that it wanted to examine the official record to determine who authorised and implemented the changes to the form.
The controversy over Form 6 is significant because the petitioners have alleged that changes were introduced despite objections from members of the Election Commission and without following the procedure prescribed under the electoral laws.
The Supreme Court made clear that it would examine whether the statutory framework had been followed. If the records establish that a decision was taken contrary to the mandatory procedure, the Court indicated that it could take corrective action, including undoing the decision.
The proceedings therefore do not presently amount to a finding against Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission. The allegations remain to be examined after the respondents place their official version and records before the Court.
The case raises a larger constitutional question concerning the collective functioning of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution and the statutory framework introduced by Parliament in 2023.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Chief Election Commissioner can independently take or implement decisions that legally belong to the Election Commission as a multi-member constitutional body.
For now, the Supreme Court has chosen scrutiny of the official record over immediate intervention. The respondents have been called upon to respond, after which the Court will consider whether any of the challenged decisions were taken without the unanimity or majority required by law.
The matter is expected to be significant for the ongoing electoral-roll revision as well as for the future interpretation of the powers and collective decision-making responsibilities of the Election Commission.
