The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition that seeks to restrain chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar from exercising his functions following reports that he unilaterally took decisions without the concurrence of the two election commissioners.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant agreed to have the case listed next week on a request by senior advocate Vikas Singh, who underscored that the decisions of the Election Commission of India have to be unanimous or by majority. “But the way the ECI has functioned raises doubts. If the ECI has not taken a unanimous decision, it is a serious issue,” the senior lawyer said.
The petition has also sought a direction from the court to call for complete records of the decisions taken during the period from October last year to verify the allegations. It said if the allegations are prime facie found to be true, the court could constitute a panel headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate the matter.
Deep Dive
What concerns have been raised regarding the decisions made by the Election Commission under CEC Gyanesh Kumar?
Why is there a need for the Supreme Court to review the Election Commission's decisions?
How will the upcoming hearings in court impact the ongoing electoral processes in India?
The petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh cited the recent Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders of the Election Commission of India, including on additions, deletion and restoration of voters and changes to the voter registration process.
{{/usCountry}}The petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh cited the recent Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders of the Election Commission of India, including on additions, deletion and restoration of voters and changes to the voter registration process.
{{/usCountry}}In light of these revelations the petition sought preservation of all records, files, notings, etc and a direction that Gyanesh Kumar “shall not exercise the functions of CEC of India, pending final hearing of the present petition.” It further required that the business of the ECI be transacted by the unanimous decision of the two election commissioners.
Also Read: Election Commission presents united front in face of mounting criticism
The petition called to question the authority under which CEC acted unilaterally as Article 324 of the Constitution that governs ECI’s functioning envisages collective decision-making power of the Commission, meant to be a multi-member collegial body. The petition also cited Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 which requires that in case of disagreement, the majority view should prevail.
“If the power constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi member body can, in fact or in substance, be exercised by one office within it without the participation the Constitution and the 2023 Act require, then decisions that determine who is on the electoral roll, and therefore who may vote, raise a serious constitutional question as to whether such decisions are being taken by the constitutional authority the Constitution created for that purpose,” the petition said.