Supreme Court Rejects Interim CEC Suspension Plea
The court issued notice to the Centre, Election Commission and officials while examining allegations that key SIR decisions were taken unilaterally.
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The court instead issued notices to the Union government, Election Commission of India and other concerned officials on a petition challenging the manner in which several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were taken.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said it wanted responses from the respondents before considering any interim relief. The notices were issued to the Union of India, the ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
The petition followed reports alleging that 14 important decisions concerning the Special Intensive Revision were taken in the name of the Election Commission despite objections recorded by the other two Election Commissioners. The petitioners contend that decisions of the multi-member poll panel cannot be taken unilaterally.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought immediate suspension of the CEC and argued that interim measures were necessary because the issue could affect citizens' voting rights. He relied on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously and that differences are decided by majority.
The bench questioned the consequences of suspending the CEC, including who would conduct elections if the Election Commission's functioning were disrupted. The court indicated that it would first examine the records and responses before deciding whether any disputed decisions were legally valid.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that if official records ultimately show that particular decisions were not taken in accordance with the required procedure, the court could consider restraining or invalidating those decisions. Chief Justice Surya Kant also said the court could not decide the matter solely on the basis of newspaper reports.
A connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi also received notice. It seeks, among other reliefs, the quashing of the allegedly unilateral decisions and an independent judicial inquiry or special investigation into the matters raised.
The Supreme Court's decision does not suspend Gyanesh Kumar or invalidate the disputed Election Commission decisions at this stage. The matter will now proceed after the respondents submit their responses to the allegations and the court examines the relevant records.