Can the CEC act alone? SC agrees to hear plea
Judges: Surya Kant CJI, Joymalya Bagchi J, V. Mohana J
Today, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana agreed to list a plea challenging alleged unilateral decision-making by Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The petition asks whether the CEC can make decisions regarding the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
The petition came to the Supreme Court after the Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months against decisions taken by the ECI without their knowledge. The objections concerned changes to Form 6, the handling of electoral rolls and the centralisation of the voter database, bringing an internal disagreement within the three-member Commission into public view.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh sought an early hearing. He stressed that the three-member ECI is intended to take decisions collectively. He argued that there was a “serious doubt” over whether the ECI had made collective decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls going on in other states across the country.
What the petition seeks
The petition challenges what it calls the “subversion of multi-member decision making” within the ECI. It alleges that the objections were made against decisions taken in the name of the ECI, including changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll management through ECINet.
The petition says the CEC is only “primus inter pares”, or first among equals, and has “no veto, no higher voting weight, and no hierarchical superiority” over the other Commissioners. It relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, under which the majority opinion prevails when the Commissioners differ.
The petition asks the Court to declare decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications made without the full Commission’s concurrence, or contrary to its majority opinion, “unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.” It specifically seeks the quashing of changes to Form 6 requiring ancestry or “last-SIR” declarations and restoration of the statutory form.
The plea also seeks to quash 16.10 lakh appeals allegedly filed in the ECI’s name before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against electors whose names had been restored by Judicial Officers. The petition quotes Sandhu asking: “Who was authorised to file these appeals on behalf of ECI, and by whom?”
It further seeks “full, unhindered, decentralized digital access” to ECINet and ERONet for ERO and preservation of the systems’ digital audit trail. The petition also asks for an independent judicial inquiry or SIT, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts, to examine the functioning of the electoral-roll systems and the alleged unauthorised actions.
The Court will hear the matter next week.