GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission of India on petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, but declined to pass an interim order for his suspension.
ALSO READ: Electric Scooter Crashes Into Stationary Truck on NH-27 in Guwahati, Teen Rider Injured
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission within a week on pleas challenging the manner in which decisions were allegedly taken by the CEC-led poll panel.
The court said it would presume that decisions of the Election Commission were in accordance with law. However, it observed that if any decision taken by the poll panel was found to be contrary to law, “then we will annul it.”
The bench also declined to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar, saying it should first hear the Election Commission and other respondents on allegations that several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken unilaterally by the CEC.
The petitions were filed after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the SIR exercise. According to the petitions, the two commissioners had alleged that some decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission, however, has said that letters written by Sandhu and Joshi to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan concerned an officer on deputation and were not related to policy or IT division matters.
One of the petitions, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, referred to the alleged differences between CEC Kumar and Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi. The plea argued that Article 324(1) of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission as a body and not in an individual Chief Election Commissioner.
The petitioner has sought a declaration that the SIR exercise and all actions, decisions, directions and measures taken under it are invalid and without legal authority. The plea also alleged that the SIR was undertaken without the necessary statutory or constitutional authority and without following the procedure prescribed by law.
Another petition, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, has sought an independent, high-powered judicial inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The petition referred to alleged “constitutional fractures and illegalities” within the Election Commission and sought an inquiry into the allegations against the CEC. It also alleged that certain acts attributed to Kumar amounted to personal criminal liability and fell outside the scope of official immunity.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Rakesh Kumar Singh, told the court that although a challenge to the appointment process under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act was pending before a larger bench, some interim measures were necessary as citizens were concerned about their voting rights.
Singh referred to Section 18 of the CEC Act, which provides that decisions of the Election Commission should, as far as possible, be unanimous and, where this is not possible, should be taken by majority.
He also referred to Section 16 of the Act, which provides legal protection to the CEC for acts done in the discharge of official duties, and argued that such protection is not available to Supreme Court judges.
