Supreme Court issues notice to EC, Centre over plea challenging CEC-led poll panel decisions

The Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre on a plea challenging the manner in which decisions were allegedly taken by the poll panel led by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the approval of the two Election Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought responses from the Election Commission and the Centre within a week.

The bench, while hearing the plea, said decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or taken by majority. It also said it presumed that this was the manner in which all decisions of the poll panel were taken.

The public interest litigation, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks a determination on whether the CEC had individually exercised powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole.

The plea also seeks a declaration that any such actions were unauthorised and appropriate legal action against the CEC.

It further sought a direction that Gyanesh Kumar not exercise the functions of the Chief Election Commissioner pending the final hearing of the petition. It proposed that during this period, the business of the Commission be conducted through unanimous decisions of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The plea also sought directions for any appointment to a resulting vacancy to be made on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.

The petition comes amid reports of differences within the Election Commission over decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A national daily reported on September 25 that Sandhu and Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR, alleging that they were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The Election Commission, however, has maintained that differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberations and that all its orders have full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.