43 mins ago
Supreme Court Plea Challenges CEC’s Alleged Unilateral Election Decisions
A lawyer has asked India’s Supreme Court to examine decisions allegedly made by the chief election official alone.
The lawyer says the Election Commission is supposed to make decisions together.
If the commissioners disagree, the law says the majority view should prevail.
The case concerns changes connected to a review of voter lists.
It also concerns changes to Form 6, which people use to register as voters.
Two election commissioners reportedly objected to some of these changes.
The petition says the changes may have been made without following the required legal process.
It asks the court to cancel the disputed decisions and consider criminal proceedings against officials.
A plea asks the Supreme Court to invalidate decisions allegedly made by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the other commissioners’ concurrence.
The petition relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides for majority decisions.
It alleges that changes linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls were implemented despite written objections from Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The plea specifically challenges software changes to Form 6, including alleged requirements for ancestral details and links to a previous revision.
The petitioner also seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and officials, alleging breaches of official duty and increasing centralisation of election systems.
- Who
- Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, represented by advocate Chand Qureshi, filed the plea against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials; Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly objected to some decisions.
- What
- The plea challenges alleged unilateral decisions, guidelines, directives and software changes, seeking their invalidation and possible criminal proceedings against officials.
- Where
- The plea was filed in the Supreme Court in New Delhi.
- When
- The plea was filed days after a report disclosed written objections by the two Election Commissioners.
- Why
- It alleges that decisions were made without the full Election Commission’s concurrence or contrary to its majority view, including changes related to electoral-roll revision and voter-registration Form 6.
Petitioner’s allegations
Election Commission position reported in the plea
Collective decision-making
Petitioner’s allegations
The petitioner says the Chief Election Commissioner could not independently initiate or implement decisions without the full commission’s concurrence or contrary to the majority view.
Election Commission position reported in the plea
The article does not provide a response from Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission to these allegations.
Form 6 changes
Petitioner’s allegations
The petition alleges that ancestral-detail and previous-revision linkage requirements were added through software without the statutory amendment required under electoral rules.
Election Commission position reported in the plea
The article does not state the Election Commission’s explanation or legal justification for the alleged changes.
Centralisation of election systems
Petitioner’s allegations
The petitioner alleges that increasingly centralised digital systems restricted the statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers and other field officials.
Election Commission position reported in the plea
No opposing statement from the Election Commission or field officials is provided in the article.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, through advocate Chand Qureshi
- Respondent at issue
- Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other officials
- Relevant law
- Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023
- Disputed process
- Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
- Disputed form
- Form 6, used by people seeking registration as voters
- Reported objections
- Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written objections to several decisions
- Relief sought
- A declaration that disputed decisions are unconstitutional, beyond authority and void, plus initiation of criminal proceedings
Quotes
The petitioner
The party challenging the alleged unilateral decisions in the Supreme Court
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.”
thehansindia.com
“Divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity, the Chief Election Commissioner remains directly accountable under the law -- subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an ordinary accused.”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Plea Seeks Prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over ECI Decisions
Two Election Commissioners Raise 14 Objections Over SIR Decisions
Advocate Seeks Contempt Proceedings Against CEC Over ECI Decisions
Petitioner Seeks Probe Into Election Commission Decisions Under Gyanesh Kumar
Election Commission Says SIR Decisions Were Unanimous After Rift Report
Former CEC Calls Form 6 Changes Illegal Amid EC Rift
Election Commission Urged to Break Silence Over Credibility Questions
Election Commission Under Scrutiny Over Reported Internal Objections
Gyanesh Kumar Defers Uttar Pradesh Visits Amid Election Commission Controversy
Rohatgi Says No Basis For Gyanesh Kumar Impeachment Move
