Courts can hear CEC petitions, but accountability won't be outsourced: Saurav Das
Saurav Das argues that while courts can hear petitions against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, democratic accountability cannot be outsourced to the judiciary.
In a significant stance regarding the oversight of India's electoral process, Saurav Das has stated that while the judiciary is fully entitled to hear petitions challenging the actions of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, the broader responsibility of democratic accountability cannot be outsourced to the courtrooms.
As various petitions are being mounted in the Supreme Court and High Courts against the decisions made by CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Das emphasized that citizens have every right to approach constitutional courts to seek legal redress. However, he argued that the ultimate verdict on the integrity of the Election Commission lies with the electorate.
The Limits of Judicial Intervention
Das highlighted that while courts are constitutional institutions capable of passing legal orders, they cannot substitute the democratic process. He noted that the demand for accountability regarding the functioning of the Election Commission is fundamentally a democratic question that must be addressed by the citizens of India.
“Because the courts are constitutional institutions, let them hear these new petitions against Gyanesh as many times as they want. Let them pass whatever orders they want to,” Das remarked. He further asserted, “But our democratic demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s accountability will NOT be outsourced to the courtrooms. The people will decide.”
Concerns Over Voter Deletions and Past Precedents
The comments come amidst growing scrutiny over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Das expressed deep concern regarding the consequences of mass voter deletions, citing past judicial observations to underscore the gravity of the situation. He referenced a previous Supreme Court proceeding involving electoral rolls in West Bengal, where it was suggested that voters unable to vote during a specific period could simply vote “next time.”
Das questioned the validity of such a sentiment in the context of electoral integrity, asking, “Who is to tell him that there is no ‘next time’ for a possibly stolen election?” He emphasized that neither a judge nor an Election Commissioner owns Indian democracy—it belongs to the people.
Internal Friction within the Election Commission?
The debate is fueled by ongoing controversies surrounding the three-member Election Commission. Recent investigative reports have suggested internal disagreements within the panel. Specifically, claims have surfaced that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised formal objections regarding:
- Electoral roll management
- Voter registration processes
- The deletion of voters from rolls
- Changes to Form 6
While these reports suggest a rift, the Election Commission has officially dismissed claims of internal conflict. The poll panel maintains that differing views and written observations are a standard part of institutional deliberation and that all decisions, including those concerning the SIR, are reached through unanimous approval by all three Commissioners.