SC Refuses Interim Order Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Seeks ECI Response

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order restraining Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning over allegations that he took several decisions unilaterally despite objections from the two other Election Commissioners, saying it could not act on assumptions without first verifying the facts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Union government, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The respondents have been asked to respond within a week.

The petition, filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh, challenges the manner in which decisions were allegedly taken by the poll panel under Kumar and seeks his suspension. The court, however, said it would first examine the ECI's response before considering any interim relief.

SC Says It Won't Act On Media Reports Alone

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, sought Kumar's immediate suspension. Alternatively, he urged the court to direct 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 decision-making by majority in case of a difference of opinion.

“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 questioned what had changed from the 1993 legal position and stressed that it could not pass an order merely on the basis of media reports or allegations.

“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,” the bench said.

The court said the ECI was required to follow the statutory framework governing its functioning and indicated that it could intervene if decisions were subsequently found to have been taken contrary to the law.

“If we find out that some decisions were taken either unanimously or without majority, as provided under Section 18, we will injunct those decisions,” the bench said.

When Singh argued that immediate intervention was necessary because the court could not later undo an election or an elected government, the bench maintained that it would first examine whether the disputed decisions complied with the law.

“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,” the bench said.

SIR Decisions, Form 6 Also Under SC Lens

The petition is linked to allegations concerning the Election Commission's decision-making during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The allegations include claims that Sandhu and Joshi had objected to aspects of the poll panel's functioning.

The ECI has disputed those allegations, maintaining that its decisions were taken in accordance with the statutory framework and that communications from the two Election Commissioners related to administrative issues involving an officer deputed to the poll body rather than policy decisions.

A separate petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi concerning alleged modifications to Form 6 on the ECINet/ERONet portal was also taken up by the bench.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, alleged that additional requirements relating to ancestry and declarations concerning the last SIR had been added to the voter-registration process.

The bench made it clear that it had not approved any modified version of Form 6.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear,” CJI Surya Kant said, adding that the court would examine the records to determine who had made the changes.

The court subsequently directed that Tripathi's petition be tagged with Singh's case.

The two proceedings will therefore examine, in separate but related contexts, the Election Commission's decision-making framework under the 2023 law and allegations concerning changes to the electoral-roll machinery amid the continuing scrutiny of the SIR exercise.