‘Proves All Institution Functioning Independently’: BJP On SC Notice To EC, Centre Over Gyanesh Kumar

The BJP on Monday cited the Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Election Commission and the Centre on allegations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar as evidence that India’s institutions were “functioning independently”.

BJP MP and spokesperson Sambit Patra said the development contradicted allegations of an atmosphere of “fear and dictatorship”. He said this at a press conference at the party’s headquarters in Delhi.

“The country is moving in a very democratic way. Everyone is speaking their heart out. All procedures and systems are being followed. Where else could there be a better model of democracy? I feel India is celebrating democracy,” he said.

Patra questioned those who had accused the government of authoritarianism.

“However, today I wish to pose a question to those who used to claim that India is operating under a ‘Hitler regime’, and that there is a dictatorship or autocracy in the country today.”

Rejecting claims of an atmosphere of fear, he added: “There is an atmosphere of democracy. So, those who claimed there was an atmosphere of fear in the country, I believe, will think twice before making such a statement now.”

Patra also described the two Election Commissioners expressing differing views in their letters concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as a “healthy sign of democracy”.

His remarks followed the Supreme Court’s direction to the EC and the Centre to respond within a week to a petition alleging that Kumar took decisions without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, declined to pass an interim order restraining Kumar from functioning. It said the allegations needed to be examined before any intervention.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, sought Kumar’s immediate suspension. Alternatively, he requested a direction requiring the three-member Commission to take only unanimous decisions until the next hearing.

Singh referred to the 1993 amendments to election law and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for majority decisions when members disagree.

“There is a distinction. The unanimity relates to transaction of business and allocation of work, while functioning can be by majority,” Singh submitted.

The bench said it could not pass an order solely on the basis of a news report.

“You have come here on the basis of a news report, which can be 100% correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass any order on the basis of a newspaper report,” it said.

The court stressed that the Commission’s decisions must be unanimous or supported by a majority. It indicated that it could restrain decisions found to have been taken contrary to the statutory framework.

When Singh argued that an election or an elected government could not subsequently be undone, the bench maintained that it would first establish the facts.

“We cannot put the cart before the horse. You want us to assume all these decisions were unilateral. We are issuing notices and they will respond,” it said.

The allegations followed an Indian Express report published late last month, which said Sandhu and Joshi had recorded at least 14 objections over 10 months concerning SIR-related decisions and orders. Some decisions were allegedly issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The report said the Commission’s ECINet software introduced requirements for ancestral details and a link to the previous SIR in Form 6, used for voter registration, without the necessary amendment to election rules. Both Commissioners reportedly objected.

The EC subsequently restored the original form in states where the SIR had been completed. The additional requirements remain in states and Union territories where the exercise is underway.

Responding to the report, the Commission said “differing views and observations” were a “normal part” of deliberations within a multi-member institution. It maintained that all decisions, including those concerning the SIR, had been taken unanimously by Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi.