The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice to the Election Commission and other concerned parties. The petition alleges that certain decisions of the Election Commission were taken without the required concurrence of the other Election Commissioners.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made it clear during the hearing that the court would not reach conclusions or pass orders solely on the basis of reports published in newspapers. The court indicated that any judicial decision would have to be based on facts, official records and the applicable legal framework.
The petition raises questions about the manner in which certain decisions were taken within the Election Commission. It alleges that despite the Commission being a multi-member constitutional body, some important decisions were taken without the required collective approval.
The petitioners have sought judicial examination of the decisions in question and have asked the court to take appropriate action if it finds that the prescribed decision-making procedure was not followed.
The matter also concerns decisions and procedures related to the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. The petition alleges that objections were raised by the other two Election Commissioners regarding certain decisions. However, these allegations have not been finally established by the court.
The Supreme Court has sought details from the Election Commission regarding the decisions referred to in the petition. The court wants to know whether the decisions were taken unanimously, by majority, or solely at the level of the Chief Election Commissioner.
During the hearing, the court indicated that if, after examining the Election Commission’s response and official records, it finds that certain decisions were taken without the required consensus, those decisions could be reconsidered or recalled.
The court’s observation is significant because the Election Commission is a multi-member constitutional institution. Questions concerning its internal decision-making process therefore have to be examined on the basis of the relevant legal provisions and official records.
The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, suspended the Chief Election Commissioner or passed any immediate adverse order against him. Instead, the court has chosen to first seek the Election Commission’s response to the allegations raised in the petitions.
The petitioners have also questioned whether decisions taken in the name of the Election Commission complied with the required legal process. They have asked the court to examine whether any decision should remain operative if it was taken without the required collective decision-making process.
The court also indicated that constitutional authorities are expected to function in accordance with the law and provide clarity regarding the manner in which important decisions are taken.
The case has gained significance because decisions of the Election Commission directly affect the electoral process and voter-related procedures. The Special Intensive Revision process involves the verification and revision of electoral rolls, making the decision-making process an important aspect of the legal challenge.
At present, the court has only issued notice and sought responses. No final finding has been made regarding the allegations against the Chief Election Commissioner.
The next stage of the proceedings will depend on the response submitted by the Election Commission and the records placed before the court. The court will then examine whether the decisions in question complied with the applicable legal requirements.
If the court ultimately finds that a particular decision was taken without the required procedure or consensus, it has indicated that such a decision could be reconsidered or withdrawn. However, no such final determination has been made at this stage.
The hearing also makes clear that the Supreme Court is not treating newspaper reports as conclusive evidence. The allegations will instead be examined against official records, factual material and the relevant constitutional and legal provisions.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
