Supreme Court Petition Challenges Chief Election Commissioner's Decisions Taken Without Collective Concurrence

A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court contesting rulings, directives, and software modifications that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar allegedly implemented without the agreement of the other two Election Commissioners, with the petitioner arguing that such conduct contravenes the statutory mandate for collective decision-making. The petition, submitted on behalf of advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi via advocate Chand Qureshi, called on the court to declare any such decisions unconstitutional, outside the CEC's authority, and legally void where they were made without the broader Election Commission's agreement or ran counter to the panel's majority position. Beyond contesting decisions allegedly made without the requisite approvals, the petitioner has also sought the initiation of criminal proceedings against the Chief Election Commissioner and other officials for breach of official duty, with the petition arguing that, absent any statutory or constitutional protection, the Chief Election Commissioner holds no special shield from the law and remains liable to police inquiry, evidence collection, and trial as any ordinary accused person would be. The petition was submitted shortly after a document came to light showing that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally noted their dissent against a number of resolutions purportedly passed under the authority of the three-member Election Commission. The applicant has invoked Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, a provision that governs how the Election Commission arrives at decisions and stipulates that any divergence of opinion among its members shall be resolved by majority vote. The petition contended that a number of rulings tied to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls had been adopted or carried out over the recorded opposition of the other two commissioners. Among the concerns raised is the modification of Form 6, the document through which individuals apply for voter registration. The petition contended that a requirement concerning ancestral information and its connection to the prior Special Summary Revision was incorporated into the election body's software without the statutory modification mandated under electoral regulations, while the plea further sought a court direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software changes initiated, approved, or carried out under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without full commission agreement or contrary to the majority view of the Election Commissioners to be unconstitutional, beyond legal authority, and void from inception. According to the petition, both Election Commissioners raised objections to the amendment and held that any modification to the prescribed form required adherence to the established statutory process. The submission further contended that the Election Commission's digital infrastructure had become progressively more centralised, undermining the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers and ground-level officials.

Supreme Court Petition Challenges Chief Election Commissioner's Decisions Taken Without Collective Concurrence

Related Posts

Supreme Court Petition Challenges Chief Election Commissioner's Decisions Taken Without Collective Concurrence

Related Posts