From Form 6 to ECI powers: Supreme Court's key observations on CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Election Commission and the Centre on pleas challenging the functioning of the poll panel under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petitions allege that some decisions, including those linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were taken without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said it would first hear the Election Commission’s response before deciding whether any action was taken in violation of the law.

SC says newspaper report alone not enough

The proceedings followed an Indian Express report claiming that Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections on record at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions and orders concerning the SIR exercise.

The bench made it clear that it could not base its decision solely on the report.

"A news report may be 100% correct, partially correct or incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today. We would definitely want their response."

The Election Commission and the Centre have been asked to respond within a week.

Court flags collective decision-making

A key issue before the court is whether the CEC can independently exercise powers that are constitutionally assigned to the Election Commission as a multi-member body.

The bench observed that decisions of the poll panel must follow the prescribed decision-making process.

"Decisions of Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority."

The court also said it was proceeding on the assumption that the Commission had followed the law.

"We presume that decisions are taken by Election Commission as per law."

However, it left open the possibility of reversing decisions if the Commission's response establishes that they were not legally taken.

"If any decision taken by Election Commission is found to be not in accordance with law, then we will annul it."

Form 6 modification also under scrutiny

The court also addressed allegations concerning changes to Form 6, the statutory application used for voter registration.

Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the court had not approved any modification to the form.

"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."

What the petitioners want

The pleas filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seek a determination on whether Kumar exercised powers that belong to the Election Commission collectively.

They have also sought Kumar's suspension pending the case, arguing that this would preserve the "multi-member character of the Election Commission."

The petitioners cited alleged unilateral decisions, guidelines and software changes as part of their challenge.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has rejected suggestions of an institutional breakdown, saying differences of opinion are a normal part of deliberations and that its orders have full legal sanction and follow established procedures.