NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday is hearing pleas seeking the suspension of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The pleas have raised questions on whether Gyanesh used powers that belong to the Election Commission without the approval of election commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will hear the pleas filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.The pleas come after an Indian Express report claimed that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which were allegedly issued without their knowledge or recommendation.What are the petitioners seeking?Singh’s plea seeks Kumar’s suspension until the final hearing, to protect the “multi-member character of the Election Commission.” It asks that Sandhu and Joshi run the commission’s business together in the meantime, with both agreeing on decisions, and that any vacancy be filled on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.Tripathi’s plea seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for failing in their official duty. It also seeks a declaration that all decisions, guidelines and software changes made under Kumar without the full commission’s agreement are “unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio,” meaning illegal and invalid from the start.Tripathi relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which says the majority view prevails when commissioners differ. He argues that the law requires decisions to be taken together.What does the plea allege?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.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
On Goa, it alleges 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.
