EC Decisions Must Be Unanimous or Taken by Majority; SC Issues Notice to EC, Centre on Pleas Against CEC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India and the Centre on petitions questioning the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, seeking a response within a week. The pleas seek an SIT probe against Kumar, his suspension, and a declaration that the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is illegal.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is hearing the matter.

Observing that the Election Commission is a multi-member body, the bench said decisions of the Commission must be either unanimous or taken by majority. "If any decision taken by the Election Commission is found not to be in accordance with law, then we will annul it," the court said.

The petitions were filed days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR. The two commissioners reportedly said some of the decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The SC heard two petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and raising questions over the Election Commission’s decision-making process in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

One of the petitions, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, referred to alleged differences between Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and the objections they had raised.

The plea contends that Article 324(1) of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission as a body, rather than in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It further argues that the CEC, while serving as chairperson, cannot individually exercise powers vested in the multi-member Commission.

Singh has sought a declaration that the SIR, along with all actions, decisions, directions and measures taken under it, be held invalid from the outset and without legal authority. The petitioner has argued that the exercise was undertaken without the required constitutional or statutory authority and without following the prescribed legal procedure.

A second petition, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks an investigation by an independent, high-powered judicial inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The petitions come amid allegations that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections to several decisions concerning the SIR. The Election Commission has maintained that decisions relating to the exercise were taken unanimously.

The matter will be taken up further after responses are filed by the Election Commission and the Centre.