Supreme Court Seeks Records Before Intervention
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order suspending Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of unilateral decision-making within the Election Commission of India. Instead, it sought responses and records to examine how the disputed decisions were approved.
The petition challenges the functioning of the poll body during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The court indicated that it would hear the respondents before considering action on allegations that decisions were taken without the required collective approval.
Form 6 Changes Come Under Scrutiny
A key issue concerns alleged modifications to Form 6, which eligible citizens use to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls. The court wanted to establish who authorised the changes and whether the relevant decisions had the approval of the Commission.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also clarified that the Supreme Court had not approved the modified Form 6. The bench’s scrutiny centres on the decision-making process and the records supporting the changes, rather than treating the allegations as established facts.
According to the supplied report, the court said it would examine whether decisions were taken by the CEC alone, unanimously by the Commission or through majority approval. It indicated that decisions could face consequences if the examination revealed illegality.
Petition Alleges Unilateral Decisions
Filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, the petition alleges that guidelines and software changes were introduced without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. It seeks Kumar’s suspension over alleged departures from the constitutional and statutory framework governing the institution.
The dispute follows reporting that the two commissioners recorded at least 14 objections over approximately 10 months concerning aspects of the SIR exercise. Those reported objections form part of the background to the challenge; they do not, by themselves, establish that the contested decisions were unlawful.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyers pressed for immediate intervention. The court, however, stressed the need to examine the underlying material and obtain responses before deciding whether interim action was warranted.
Election Commission Defends Its Procedures
The Election Commission has previously maintained that differing views are a normal part of institutional deliberations. As stated in the supplied report, it has asserted that its orders had legal sanction and followed established statutory procedures.
That response places the Commission’s records at the centre of the proceedings. Their examination will help the court assess the petition’s claims against the poll body’s explanation of how decisions were reached.
Monday’s hearing did not result in Kumar’s suspension or a final finding of wrongdoing. The challenge remains pending, with the next stage focused on responses and documentary evidence concerning the disputed decisions.
