Kashmir Impulse Desk
New Delhi, Oct 05
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from taking decisions pending a final ruling on a petition challenging the Election Commission’s functioning.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre on a plea alleging that several decisions had been taken without the approval of the other two election commissioners.
The court said it would examine decisions taken by the poll panel and could annul those found contrary to law.
The bench also indicated that it could examine the statutory immunity available to the CEC, including whether the protection continues after the officeholder leaves the post.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, had sought an interim order restraining Kumar from taking further decisions and his suspension, arguing that citizens were concerned about the protection of their voting rights.
The bench questioned whether suspending the CEC could disrupt the functioning of the Election Commission.
“Who will conduct the elections?” the court asked.
Singh said the other two election commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, could discharge the functions.
The court said it could not pass such an order without hearing the respondents and would first examine the decisions taken by the poll panel.
Singh urged the court to direct the Commission to take decisions unanimously or by majority, as required by law.
Chief Justice Kant said any decision found to have been taken in violation of the statutory requirement could be annulled.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether the court could conclude, without hearing the respondents, that the decisions were unilateral.
The bench said it expected the Election Commission to respond in a “clear, transparent manner”.
Singh alleged that the electoral roll had been “vitiated” by unilateral decisions of the CEC and referred to an Election Commission statement issued after a controversy over a news report.
The Chief Justice said the court could not rely solely on newspaper reports and would consider the responses of the Commission and the Centre.
The court also tagged a connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and asked senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, to amend its prayers if necessary.
The court gave the Election Commission and the Centre a week to respond and furnish relevant details.
The petitions followed a report by The Indian Express on Sept. 25 that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, saying the orders had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission has said differences of opinion are part of institutional deliberations and maintained that its orders had full legal sanction and followed statutory procedures.
Singh’s petition seeks a ruling on whether the CEC had exercised powers vested in the Commission collectively and, if so, whether such actions were unauthorised. It also seeks an interim order preventing Kumar from exercising the functions of CEC and allowing the Commission’s business to be conducted through Sandhu and Joshi.
