SC Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging Gyanesh Kumar’s Functioning As CEC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition seeking to restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from exercising his functions over allegations that decisions were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the matter next week after senior advocate Vikas Singh raised the issue before the court. Singh argued that decisions of the Election Commission of India must be taken either unanimously 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,” Singh said.

The petition, filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, relies on a recent Indian Express report that said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning electoral rolls and the voter registration process.

It seeks access to the complete records of decisions taken by the Commission since October last year to determine whether the allegations of unilateral decision-making have substance. If the allegations are found to have a prima facie basis, the petitioner has asked the court to consider appointing a panel headed by a former Supreme Court judge or constituting a Special Investigation Team to examine the matter.

The plea also seeks preservation of records, files and notings related to the disputed decisions. Among its interim requests is a direction that Gyanesh Kumar “shall not exercise the functions of CEC of India, pending final hearing of the present petition.”

The petitioner has further sought a direction that the Commission’s business be conducted through the unanimous decision of the two Election Commissioners.

At the heart of the petition is the interpretation of Article 324 of the Constitution, which provides for the Election Commission as a constitutional body responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of elections and electoral rolls. The plea argues that the provision envisages a multi-member Commission and that powers vested in the institution cannot be exercised independently by its chairperson, Live Law reported.

The petition also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. The provision deals with the Commission’s decision-making process and provides that where the members disagree, the majority view is to 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.

The matter comes amid a wider controversy over the functioning of the Election Commission and its conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Commission has maintained that differences or observations during internal deliberations are part of its decision-making process and has said its formal decisions were taken collectively.

The Supreme Court is now expected to consider the petition next week.