SIR Series: Supreme Court refuses to issue interim order to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, issues notice to EC, Center | Today’s news
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass any interim order on the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Instead, it issued a notice to the Election Commission and the Center seeking replies within a week to the objection challenging the manner in which the panel, headed by CEC Kumar, had allegedly taken the decision without the consent of the two election commissioners.
An investigation by the Indian Express alleged that Gyanesh Kumar made decisions at the Election Commission of India unilaterally, without the consent of two other election commissioners.
The case against Gyanesh Kumar: What we know so far
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant observed that it should first ask the Election Commission and other respondents to respond to the allegation that several decisions regarding the SIR were taken unilaterally by the CEC.
Supreme Court issued notice to CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sindhu, Dr. Vivek Joshi, Election Commissioner Dy Maneesh Garg IAS and DG (IT) Seema Khanna to answer the allegations leveled in the plea.
“We will take back these decisions if . . .”
The Supreme Court said that if, after considering the ECI’s reply, it finds that some decisions were taken by the CEC without the requisite unanimity, it could reconsider or recall those decisions.
“After the announcement, if they come forward and show that the ABC’s decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back,” it said.
The bench said that the election commission’s decision must be either unanimous or by majority, and that it assumed that all decisions were taken that way. “They are expected to take unanimous decisions… if there is no unanimity, it must be a majority…,” CJI Kant said, according to Live Law.
Meanwhile, Justice Bagchi was quoted as saying, “If the records show that some decisions were not unanimous, etc., we will order those decisions and say they are ultra vires. Can we ex-parte come to a decision that all the decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear and transparent manner.”
Plea against Gyanesh Kumar
The Supreme Court was hearing complaints against the Election Commission of India regarding Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The plea, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, questioned the manner in which the ECI was functioning, alleging that the powers vested in the panel as a multi-member constitutional body were being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.
The PIL urged the Supreme Court to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kumar was individually exercising powers legally vested in the Election Commission (EC) as a whole and, if so, to declare these actions unauthorized and take appropriate legal action.
The case was filed following a September 25 Indian Express report which alleged that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had challenged the decisions and orders of special intensive review (SIR) of electoral rolls at least 14 times in the last 10 months, which they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Under fire over red flags raised by two of its commissioners, the Electoral Commission rejected the suggestion that the reported objections represented institutional dissent from the final decisions.
The Election Commission argued that differing opinions and perceptions are a normal part of dealings in any institution.
The survey panel said operational questions, input and suggestions raised during the design phase were part of its standard administrative and decision-making process. The ECI said the decisions regarding the SIR exercise schedule were unanimous.
(With inputs from PTI, ANI)
