The Supreme Court on Monday sought the Election Commission’s response to allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took certain decisions without the concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners, saying it could not act solely on the basis of a newspaper report.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice to the Election Commission while hearing petitions challenging the functioning of the poll panel and its handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The petitions question whether powers constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member body could be exercised by the CEC alone, without following the required collective decision-making process.
The court indicated that it could reconsider decisions if the Election Commission’s response establishes that they were taken without the required concurrence.
“After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back,” the court said.
Pleas raise questions over ECI's collective functioning
The proceedings stem from petitions alleging that several decisions attributed to the Election Commission under Kumar were taken without the approval or knowledge of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
One of the petitions seeks a writ of quo warranto against Kumar and challenges decisions, guidelines, directives and software changes allegedly initiated, approved or implemented without the concurrence of the full Commission. It argues that such actions undermine the constitutional requirement of collective functioning under Article 324.
Another petition has sought an independent judicial inquiry or a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge into the allegations. It also challenges the legal validity of actions connected with the SIR exercise.
The pleas came after a report in The Indian Express said Sandhu and Joshi had formally recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period to decisions and processes within the poll panel. The reported disagreements concerned electoral rolls, voter registration, access to electoral data and the Commission’s technology systems.
What the 14 objections were about
The reported objections included issues surrounding changes to Form 6, which is used for new voter registration, as well as the handling of electoral rolls and the centralisation of certain functions.
The Indian Express reported that the two commissioners had raised concerns over an SIR-linked alteration to Form 6. They argued that statutory forms could not be changed without amending the relevant 1960 rules. The report also said Sandhu had sought the removal of what he described as unauthorised changes to prevent possible voter disenfranchisement.
The allegations cited in the Supreme Court proceedings also include claims that powers exercised by Electoral Registration Officers were centralised under the Election Commission’s Director General of Information Technology and that appeals were filed in West Bengal without the knowledge or authorisation of the other commissioners and the state Chief Electoral Officer.
The petitioners have argued that these developments point to a breakdown of the multi-member decision-making mechanism envisaged for the poll panel.
ECI rejects claims of institutional dissent
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to institutional dissent or a breakdown in decision-making.
The poll panel has maintained that operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the drafting stage are part of its normal administrative and decision-making process. It has also asserted that the final decisions relating to the SIR schedule were unanimous.
The Commission’s response will now be significant as the Supreme Court has made clear that it wants the poll body's own explanation before deciding whether any action taken without the required concurrence should be reconsidered.
The case assumes significance amid the wider legal and political controversy over the SIR of electoral rolls. The Supreme Court had agreed to examine challenges alleging that the exercise and related decisions lacked the necessary statutory or constitutional authority and were not undertaken through the legally prescribed procedure.