- Supreme Court will hear pleas challenging CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s actions.
- Petitions allege unilateral changes to electoral software and Form 6.
- Pleas seek CEC’s suspension, collective decisions, new appointment process.
- Challenges highlight issues in Goa, West Bengal electoral roll revisions.
The Supreme Court is set to hear on Monday a batch of petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenging several decisions allegedly taken by him without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will hear pleas filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petitions question whether Kumar individually exercised powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a multi-member body.
The petitioners have challenged decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly introduced under Kumar without the approval of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. They have also sought directions to prevent Kumar from functioning as CEC until the petitions are finally decided.
Pleas Challenge Alleged Unilateral Exercise Of EC Powers
Singh’s PIL has asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the CEC individually exercised powers vested in the Election Commission as a whole. If the court finds that such actions were unauthorised, the petitioner has sought appropriate legal action.
The plea also seeks an interim direction that Kumar should not perform the functions of CEC pending the final hearing. During this period, it has sought that the Commission’s business be conducted through the unanimous decisions of Sandhu and Joshi.
The petitioner has further sought directions that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.
The plea comes against the backdrop of an Indian Express report which claimed that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
According to the report cited in the petition, the two commissioners had said some of these decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission, however, has said that differences of opinion and observations are a normal part of deliberations within any institution. It has maintained that all its orders have full legal sanction and are issued in accordance with established statutory procedures.
ALSO READ: After SIR, EC Likely To Conduct Special Voter Roll Revision In UP Ahead Of 2027 Polls
Plea Raises Questions Over Form 6, Electoral Roll Software
Tripathi’s petition, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, has alleged that the CEC’s actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making. It has also sought initiation of criminal proceedings against Kumar and other officials for alleged breach of official duty.
The petition relies on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, particularly Section 18, which provides for decision-making by the Election Commission and states that where there is a difference of opinion, the majority view prevails.
One of the key issues raised concerns Form 6, which is used by people to register as voters. The petition alleges that requirements relating to ancestral details and links with the previous SIR were introduced through the poll panel’s software without the statutory amendment required under electoral rules.
According to the plea, the two other Election Commissioners objected to the changes and maintained that the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.
The petition has sought a writ of mandamus or another appropriate direction declaring decisions, guidelines, directives and software modifications initiated, approved or implemented without the concurrence of the full Commission, or contrary to the majority view, as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio.
ALSO READ: Premanand Maharaj Ashram Row: Falahari Maharaj Makes Serious Allegations, Seeks CBI Probe
Plea Flags Goa, West Bengal Electoral Roll Issues
The petition has also raised concerns about the handling of electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal.
In Goa, the petitioner alleged that the poll panel’s software did not have a mechanism to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification.
In West Bengal, the plea claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the name of the Election Commission against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.
The petitioner alleged that the other two Election Commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were neither aware of nor had authorised these appeals.
The Union Law Ministry, the Election Commission, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg have been made parties in the petitions.
The Supreme Court’s hearing on Monday will consider the pleas challenging the alleged manner in which the Election Commission’s decisions were taken and the petitioners’ requests for interim and other reliefs.
(With inputs from PTI)
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
