SC declines ex-parte plea to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar
The Supreme Court issues notices to the ECI and CEC Gyanesh Kumar following allegations of unilateral decisions regarding electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an immediate interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, following serious allegations that he bypassed the collective decision-making process of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued formal notices to the Centre, the ECI, and several high-ranking officials to seek their responses regarding controversial decisions made during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Allegations of Unilateral Decision-Making
The petition, filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, alleges that the CEC has been exercising powers individually that are constitutionally mandated to be exercised by the Commission as a multi-member body. According to the plea, at least 14 crucial decisions related to the SIR process were allegedly taken in the name of the ECI despite formal objections being recorded by the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that these unilateral actions pose a significant threat to electoral democracy. He pointed to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, which requires ECI decisions to be unanimous or, if not, decided by a majority. The petitioner sought the immediate suspension of the CEC to protect the integrity of the poll panel.
Court Questions Feasibility of Suspension
While the bench took the allegations seriously, it expressed concerns regarding the practical implications of suspending the head of the election body. The bench questioned how the country would manage its electoral processes if the CEC were removed abruptly.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked. In response, Singh contended that the two other Election Commissioners could discharge the necessary functions in his absence. However, the court maintained that it must first examine authenticated information and hear all parties involved before making any such drastic move.
Chief Justice Kant observed that the statutory framework is indeed mandatory, stating, “If there is any violation, we will undo.” Justice Bagchi further noted that if the records eventually prove that decisions were not made unanimously, the court has the authority to declare them ultra vires (beyond legal power).
Key Grievances and Procedural Lapses
The petition highlights several specific areas where the ECI's functioning is allegedly compromised:
- Electoral Roll Alterations: Allegations that Form 6 was changed during the Special Intensive Revision to require specific disclosures without the necessary amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Lack of Transparency: Claims that agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated to the Commissioners for over a year.
- Database Control: Concerns regarding the centralization of the electoral-roll database and the authority of the DG (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
- Unauthorized Communications: Allegations that communications were issued under the ECI's name without the formal approval of the Commission.
The Supreme Court has now called upon the Centre, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg, and DG (IT) Seema Khanna to respond to these serious claims.