Big relief for Gyanesh Kumar: Supreme Court refuses immediate suspension, issues notice to Election Commission
PTC Web Desk: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass any immediate order restraining Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, saying it could not act on allegations or media reports without first verifying the facts.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, Gyanesh Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners in a petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.
Also Read | Supreme Court clarifies stand on modified Form 6 amid SIR row: ‘We have not approved it | What is Form 6 controversy?
The petition alleges that several decisions were taken by the poll panel without the agreement of the other Election Commissioners.
During the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, sought Kumar’s immediate suspension. As an alternative, he urged the court to direct the Election Commission to take only unanimous decisions until the matter is heard next.
Singh relied on provisions of election law and referred to Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for majority decision-making when members differ.
The Bench, however, questioned the basis for seeking such an immediate intervention.
The judges said the court could not proceed on the assumption that the allegations were correct and needed to hear the Election Commission’s version before taking any coercive step.
SC cautions against relying solely on media reports
The Bench also questioned the petitioner’s reliance on media reports concerning alleged differences within the Election Commission. The court observed that a news report could be completely accurate, partly accurate or incorrect, and therefore could not by itself form the basis for an interim judicial order.
The judges said the Election Commission would be required to place the relevant facts and records before the court.
At the same time, the Bench made it clear that this did not mean the court would remain passive if statutory requirements were found to have been violated.
The court said if any decision is ultimately found to have been taken contrary to the law, it could intervene and restrain its implementation.
Dispute over unanimous decision-making
During the hearing, Singh argued that changes in the legal framework governing the Election Commission had raised concerns about how decisions were being taken.
He referred to the 1993 amendments and the 2023 law, arguing that there was a distinction between the allocation and transaction of business, where unanimity was relevant, and the actual functioning of the Commission, where majority decisions could apply.
The Bench pointed to Section 18 of the 2023 Act, noting that the law provides a mechanism for dealing with differences of opinion among members.
When Singh pressed for an interim order, arguing that the credibility of the Election Commission was at stake, the court reiterated that it first needed the factual record.
The judges said if the disputed decisions were found to have been taken without following the statutory process, the court could subsequently restrain them.
SIR decisions also under scrutiny
The petition also raises questions over decisions linked to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Singh alleged that some decisions connected with the SIR had been taken unilaterally. The bench, however, cautioned against accepting that claim before the Election Commission responded.
The court said it would first examine whether the decisions complied with Section 18 of the 2023 Act.
The petition largely draws on allegations contained in an investigation published by The Indian Express, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections regarding certain aspects of the poll body's functioning.
The report also raised questions about changes to digital electoral-roll systems, information sought from voters through Form 6 and decisions connected with the SIR exercise.
The Election Commission has rejected the allegations, maintaining that its decisions were unanimous. It has also said that communications from the two Election Commissioners related to administrative matters concerning an officer deputed to the poll body and not policy decisions.
- PTC NEWS
