Supreme Court Refuses Interim Suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Issues Notice on SIR Pleas
Court seeks responses from Centre, ECI and officials over allegations that key SIR decisions were taken without concurrence of other Election Commissioners
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice to the Centre, Election Commission of India and other respondents on petitions challenging the manner in which several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were taken.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it would first seek responses from the concerned authorities before considering the allegations raised in the petitions.
The petitions were filed after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections to several decisions concerning the SIR exercise. According to the petitions, the two Election Commissioners had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over decisions allegedly taken without their concurrence.
One petition was filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, while a connected petition was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petitioners have questioned whether decisions of the Election Commission, as a multi member body, can be taken without the required concurrence or majority decision of the Commission.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar as CEC. He argued that the alleged unilateral decisions could have serious consequences for voters and the electoral process.
The bench, however, indicated that it could not pass such an order without first hearing the respondents. Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the Court could decide ex parte that the disputed decisions had been taken unilaterally. The bench also said that if the records eventually establish that decisions were taken contrary to the law, appropriate orders could be considered.
The Court also observed that it could not pass an order solely on the basis of newspaper reports and would require the relevant records and responses from the authorities.
The connected petition filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks, among other reliefs, the quashing of decisions allegedly taken without the required concurrence of the Election Commissioners. It also seeks an independent judicial inquiry or Special Investigation Team probe into alleged irregularities connected with the SIR process.
The petition further alleges that around 13 crore names were deleted from electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR exercise and seeks a forensic examination of the ECINet and ERONet databases. This figure is an allegation made in the petition and has not been established by the Supreme Court.
The petition also raises questions concerning changes to Form 6, the restoration of 97 electors in Goa and the filing of more than 16 lakh appeals in West Bengal relating to voters whose names were restored after being initially excluded from the electoral rolls. These claims are also part of the petition and remain subject to judicial examination.
The Election Commission has previously maintained that differences of view during internal deliberations do not mean that its decisions lacked legal validity, and has said that its orders were issued in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.
With the latest order, the Supreme Court has sought responses from the concerned authorities before deciding whether any of the disputed decisions were taken contrary to the statutory requirement governing the functioning of the Election Commission.