The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the conduct of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana granted the petitioners ten days to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit submitted by the ECI on Wednesday. The matter has been tentatively listed for hearing on November 17.
What Is The Core Allegation Against The Election Commission In These Pleas?
The petitioners allege that crucial decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally by the CEC without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, violating the constitutional framework under Article 324 and the statutory procedure under Section 18 of the CEC and Other ECs Act, 2023.
The lead petition, Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors., was filed alongside petitions by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and INDIA bloc leaders, Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra, AIMIM chief and MP Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh, and West Bengal MP Dola Sen. The pleas were prompted by a media report claiming that at least 14 decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the Commission despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
During the brief hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi and INDIA bloc leaders, urged the Court to pass an order preserving file notings and internal communications. He submitted that the entire issue hinges on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decisions were unanimous or not. Chief Justice Surya Kant responded, We know everything, we will examine, indicating the bench would consider the request for preservation of records.
Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for TMC MP Dola Sen, contended that the ECI's own counter-affidavit corroborated the petitioners' arguments. She alleged that the Commission had tampered with Form 6, used for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and issued a press release claiming Supreme Court approval for the same. Senior Advocate Dr Maninder Singh, representing the ECI, refuted this submission, terming it a rhetoric meant for the outside.
ECI's Defence And Constitutional Submission
In its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied allegations of unilateral decision-making, asserting that all decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously by the Commission. The Commission further stated that Form 6 was not amended. On the maintainability of the plea seeking to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, the ECI relied on Article 324(5) of the Constitution. This provision stipulates that the CEC shall not be removed from office except in the like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Petitioners' Stance | ECI's Stance (Counter-Affidavit) |
|---|---|
Allege unilateral decisions by CEC on SIR without concurrence of other ECs. | Assert all SIR decisions were taken unanimously by the Commission. |
Claim Form 6 tampered with; press release falsely cited SC approval. | State Form 6 was not amended; deny misleading press release. |
Seek restraint on CEC Gyanesh Kumar from functioning. | Plea not maintainable; removal only per Article 324(5) (like SC Judge). |
Violation of Article 324 and Section 18 of CEC Act, 2023. | Functioning compliant with constitutional and statutory framework. |
The bench had previously issued notice in the lead case on October 5 while declining to pass an ex-parte interim order suspending the CEC. At that hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, had urged interim relief arguing that the allegations raised serious concerns regarding the functioning of the poll body and the protection of voting rights, submitting that the Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn.
The Court had expressed reservations about suspending the CEC without hearing the respondents, observing that such an order could stall the functioning of the ECI. When asked who would conduct elections, Mr Singh suggested the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the Commission's functions in the interim. He also prayed for directions requiring the preservation of records pertaining to the decision-making process.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the lead petitioner, requested time to file the rejoinder on Thursday, which the bench allowed. The adjournment effectively defers a detailed judicial scrutiny of the Commission's internal decision-making records and the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act's procedural mandates until the matter is taken up next month.