Supreme Court Issues Notice to Election Commission Over Allegations Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday heard a plea seeking the removal and immediate suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over allegations of taking nearly 14 unilateral decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) without the concurrence of the two other Election Commissioners.

While the apex court declined to issue an interim order suspending the CEC, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued formal notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI), directing it to place the official records on file. The bench made it clear that if any decisions were taken without following statutory and procedural consensus, they could be stayed or rolled back.

CJI Refutes ECI’s Claim on Form-6 Modification

A key moment in the proceedings came when CJI Surya Kant categorically observed that the Supreme Court had never approved any modifications or declarations attached to Form-6.

This observation stands in direct contrast to a press note issued by the Election Commission on September 24, which claimed that the declaration attached to Form-6 for the SIR process had judicial clearance from the top court. The bench reiterated that official records must be examined to verify what actually transpired.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Hearing

1. No Orders Based Solely on Media Reports: Refusing an immediate suspension, the bench noted that news reports can be fully accurate, partially correct, or erroneous. A constitutional functionary cannot be suspended purely on the basis of investigative journalism without examining the official response and internal records of the ECI.

2. Rule of Consensus or Majority: The Supreme Court emphasized the collegiate nature of the Election Commission, noting that decisions must be taken unanimously or by majority. A unilateral decision by any single member cannot legally represent the Commission as a whole.

3. Presumption Requires Evidence: The court observed that it cannot presuppose the CEC acted unilaterally simply because allegations were raised in a PIL; institutional records must be verified first.

4. Unilateral Decisions Subject to Judicial Action: The bench signaled that if the records demonstrate decisions were pushed through bypassing mandatory consultative procedures, the court will consider staying or reversing those specific actions.

The Petitions and Arguments

Two public interest litigations (PILs) have been moved before the apex court challenging the SIR decisions and the CEC's conduct:

• First PIL: Filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh seeking the suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for the petitioner.

• Second PIL: Filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy.

Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not hold explicit powers to summarily suspend a sitting Chief Election Commissioner, whose removal procedure mirrors that of a Supreme Court judge (impeachment). However, the judicial review of the decisions and administrative actions undertaken by the Commission falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the top court.

Background: Internal Rifts and Political Pushback

The controversy erupted following an Indian Express investigation revealing sharp differences within the ECI regarding the implementation of the SIR exercise. According to reports, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had repeatedly flagged procedural concerns inside the panel.

Meanwhile, opposition parties are reportedly preparing to introduce a fresh impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar in the upcoming parliamentary session. A prior impeachment notice submitted in April was rejected in the Lok Sabha, while proceedings remain pending before the Rajya Sabha.