Supreme Court Hears Petitions Against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar
The Supreme Court has taken up petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the manner in which the Election Commission of India has handled the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard the petitions on October 5. The pleas seek judicial intervention over allegations that important decisions relating to electoral-roll revision were taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
The Court, however, declined at this stage to pass an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar. It instead issued notices to the Election Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner and the other concerned respondents, seeking their response to the allegations.
The proceedings arise amid controversy over the nationwide Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. The petitioners have questioned whether the Chief Election Commissioner can individually exercise powers that, under Article 324 of the Constitution and the 2023 law governing the Election Commission, belong to the Commission as a multi-member body.
One of the petitions was filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh. It alleges that decisions concerning the SIR were taken by Gyanesh Kumar without the required participation or concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
The petition relies in part on reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on multiple occasions concerning SIR-related decisions and orders. According to the reports cited in the litigation, the two commissioners had objected at least 14 times over a period of 10 months.
The petitioner argues that Article 324 does not vest the entire superintendence, direction and control of elections in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. Instead, the constitutional provision establishes an Election Commission consisting of the CEC and other Election Commissioners, with the CEC serving as its chairperson when other commissioners are appointed.
The Supreme Court indicated that it would examine whether the statutory procedure governing decision-making within the Election Commission had actually been followed.
The Court also made it clear that it would not issue an interim order merely on the basis of newspaper reports. The Election Commission’s records and its response would have to be examined before the Court considers whether any statutory requirement was breached.
The second petition, filed by Delhi-based advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks an independent judicial inquiry or a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
That petition alleges serious irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission and seeks an investigation into decisions allegedly taken without the concurrence of the full Commission.
The petitioners have also challenged changes relating to Form 6, the form used for voter registration. They allege that modifications were made to the form and its underlying software without following the statutory procedure required for altering the prescribed electoral form.
During the hearing, the Bench indicated that it would specifically examine the records relating to the modified Form 6. The Court sought to know who had made the changes and under whose authority they had been introduced.
Another significant issue before the Court is Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The provision lays down the procedure for conducting the business of the Election Commission and provides for unanimity where possible, with differing views resolved through majority decision-making.
The Supreme Court indicated that the immediate question was whether the statutory decision-making mechanism had been followed. If the records ultimately establish that decisions were taken contrary to the law, the Court indicated that appropriate judicial intervention could follow.
The petitions also seek to challenge the legal protection available to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners for acts performed in the discharge of their official functions.
The controversy has unfolded against the backdrop of intense political criticism of the Election Commission’s handling of the electoral-roll revision. Opposition parties have questioned the transparency of the process, while the Election Commission has maintained that its orders have legal sanction and that differing views during institutional deliberations are not unusual.
The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, made any finding that Gyanesh Kumar acted illegally or that the allegations made in the petitions are established. The Court’s decision to seek the Election Commission’s response means that the factual and legal issues will now be examined on the basis of the official record.
The case is therefore significant beyond the immediate controversy over SIR. It raises a broader constitutional question about the collective functioning of India’s Election Commission and the extent to which the Chief Election Commissioner can exercise powers within a multi-member constitutional body.
The matter is expected to come up again after the respondents place their records and responses before the Supreme Court. The Court’s eventual decision could have important implications for the interpretation of Article 324 and the statutory framework governing the functioning of the Election Commission.
