New Delhi: With the Supreme Court scheduling the next hearing in petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s alleged unilateral decisions for 27 October, attention will turn to the affidavits to be filed by Kumar, Election Commissioners (ECs) Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Election Commission of India (ECI) Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna. The Centre and the ECI will also file their responses.
On 5 October, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the ECI and other respondents on two petitions alleging that the CEC had taken unilateral decisions on the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, including changes to Form 6, used to register new voters.
Separately, on October 15, the CJI-led bench issued notice on a plea filed by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and other INDIA bloc leaders. The petition alleges irregularities in the ongoing SIR exercise, claiming that Kumar exercised the ECI’s collective powers without the knowledge or concurrence of the other two commissioners. It sought access to the poll body’s internal records, an independent audit of voter deletions and an interim suspension of the revision exercise.
The respondents include the Centre, the ECI, Kumar, Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitions from 5 October were filed by Patna-based social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Singh named the Centre, the ECI, the CEC, both ECs, Garg and Khanna as respondents. Tripathi named the Centre, the ECI, the CEC, the Cabinet Secretary, Garg and Khanna.
The petitioners cited a report published by The Indian Express on 23 September which said Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections to the ECI’s decisions at least 14 times in 10 months.
The report had triggered nationwide protests by Opposition parties and student organisations demanding the CEC’s resignation and the rollback of the SIR exercise, which has resulted in the deletion of at least 13 crore names from the draft electoral rolls. The agitation continues with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) giving a call for a Tiranga Yatra on Friday.
The petitions challenge Sections 16 and 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which deal with immunity for election commissioners and decision-making within the ECI, respectively.
Section 16 bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a serving or former CEC or EC for any “act, thing or word” done or spoken while discharging, or purporting to discharge, official duties or functions.
Section 18 empowers the ECI to regulate its business and allocate work among the CEC and ECs through unanimous decisions. It states that the commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously, with a majority decision prevailing when the CEC and ECs disagree.
During the 5 October hearing, the CJI observed that the ECI was expected under the law to take decisions unanimously. By issuing notice and scheduling a subsequent hearing, the court said it wanted to establish whether the statutory provisions had been followed.
Justice Bagchi said the court could “injunct those decisions” if irregularities were established after considering the ECI’s response.
(Edited by Chingkheinganbi Mayengbam)
Also Read: CEC selection can’t rest on goodwill of the majority. Apply merit, seniority & transparency