The Supreme Court on 5 October declined to issue an interim order on a request to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. However, it issued notices seeking responses from the central government, the Election Commission, Gyanesh Kumar and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, on a petition alleging that several decisions in the commission’s name had been taken by the CEC alone. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
What the petition alleges
The petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh. It alleges that several decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were issued as decisions of the three-member Election Commission, despite lacking the agreement of the other two commissioners. The petition is based on an Indian Express report claiming that the two Election Commissioners had registered written objections to such decisions at least 14 times over a period of around 10 months.
The petitioner has sought a writ of quo warranto, the suspension of the CEC or the withdrawal of his powers, and a declaration that all actions taken under SIR were invalid from the outset. He argues that decisions taken without the commission’s approval violate Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
In its statement on the report, the Election Commission had said that differences of opinion during deliberations are normal and that its orders are issued through the prescribed statutory process. According to the commission, the two commissioners’ letters concerned an officer on deputation, not policy matters.
What the court said
During the hearing, the bench said the Election Commission was expected to make decisions unanimously, and that where there was no consensus, decisions should be made by a majority. Chief Justice Surya Kant said that if the records showed a decision had been taken neither by a majority nor unanimously, the commission would have to explain it, and that the court could overturn such decisions if it found a violation of the law.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, asked for a direction that the commission take decisions only by majority until the next hearing. The bench declined the request, saying the newspaper report might be correct or partly incorrect, and that no order could be passed that day solely on its basis; the commission’s response should come first. Justice Bagchi said it could not be assumed at this stage that all the disputed decisions had been taken unilaterally.
The court has also issued notices to Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg and the commission’s Director General (IT), Seema Khanna. Vikas Singh had mentioned the matter on 29 September to seek an early hearing. Further hearings will take place after responses are received from all parties.
Photo: Subhashish Panigrahi / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
