‘Want to see who modified Form 6’: SC refuses to pass interim order to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar | India News
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an interim order seeking the suspension of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice to the Election Commission of India, CEC and the other two election commissioners on a plea challenging decisions taken by the poll body on Special Intensive Revision.A bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard pleas filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The pleas raised questions over whether Gyanesh used powers belonging to the Election Commission without the approval of election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified. But, your prayers appear jumbled up,” the CJI noted.The apex court directed the respondents to file their responses to the allegations. The court said it would examine whether the statutory scheme was followed and indicated that if the records showed that any decision was not taken in accordance with the law, it could injunct such a decision and hold it ultra vires.“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires. Can we ex-parte come to decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi added.What did the petitioners seek?One of the plea sought Gyanesh’s suspension until the final hearing to protect the “multi-member character of the Election Commission”. It asked that Sandhu and Joshi run the commission’s business together in the meantime and that any vacancy be filled on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.However, the second plea sought criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for allegedly failing in their official duty. It further sought a declaration that all decisions, guidelines and software changes made under Gyanesh without the full commission’s agreement are “unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio”, meaning illegal and invalid from the start.Tripathi’s plea relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which says the majority view prevails when commissioners differ. The plea argued that the law requires decisions to be taken together.What is the EC SIR row?A report by the Indian Express claimed that commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders relating to the SIR, which were allegedly issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
On Form 6, the voter registration form, the plea alleges that a requirement for ancestral details and a link to the previous SIR was added through the poll panel’s software without the legal amendment the election rules require. It claims the other two commissioners objected to the change.On Goa, it alleges that the software lacked a feature to restore 97 eligible voters despite directions to verify them.On West Bengal, it claims more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the EC’s name against voters whose names were restored by judicial officers. It says the other two commissioners and the state’s chief electoral officer did not know about these appeals or approve them.The Election Commission has said differing views are a normal part of discussions in any institution and that all its orders are legally valid and follow the set procedures.
