SC refuses interim plea to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar, seeks records on form 6 changes

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an interim order restraining Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning over allegations that he took several decisions unilaterally despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners, saying it could not act on assumptions without first verifying the facts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Centre, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by social activist Rakesh Kumar Singh.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, sought Kumar's immediate suspension. Alternatively, he urged the court to direct the Election Commission to take only unanimous decisions until the matter is heard next.

Singh referred to the 1993 amendments to election law and Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for majority decision-making where there is a difference of opinion.

The bench, however, said it would first examine whether the statutory requirements governing the Election Commission's functioning had been followed.

The court also cautioned against relying solely on media reports, noting that the allegations were substantially based on a report by The Indian Express about differences within the poll panel.

“You have come here on the basis of a news report, which can be 100% correct, partially correct or partially incorrect. We cannot pass any order on the basis of a newspaper report,” the bench said.

The court said it could subsequently intervene if it found that decisions had been taken contrary to the law.

“If we find out that some decisions were taken either unanimously or without majority, as provided under Section 18, we will injunct those decisions and say these decisions cannot be implemented,” the bench said.

Singh argued that several of the disputed decisions related to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and had allegedly been taken unilaterally.

The bench cautioned against assuming that the decisions had been taken in that manner before receiving responses from the Election Commission.

The ECI has disputed the allegations, maintaining that its decisions were unanimous and that communications from Sandhu and Joshi cited in the Indian Express report concerned administrative issues rather than policy decisions.

SC seeks records on Form 6 changes

In a separate but related matter, the bench also issued notice on a petition challenging alleged changes to Form 6, the application used by citizens to register as voters, on the ECINet/ERONet portal during the SIR exercise.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleged that changes had been made to the form, including requirements relating to ancestry and declarations concerning the previous SIR.

The bench clarified that it had not approved any such modifications.

“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said, adding that the court would examine who had made the changes once the records were produced.

The court directed that Tripathi's petition be tagged with Singh's plea concerning the functioning of the Election Commission.

The two matters bring before the Supreme Court separate challenges concerning the Election Commission's decision-making process, the statutory framework governing its functioning and alleged changes to the electoral-roll machinery amid continuing scrutiny of the SIR exercise.