36 mins ago
Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Challenging CEC and Electoral Roll Revision
India’s Supreme Court is set to consider two petitions about the country’s election commission.
The petitions question how Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has acted and challenge a nationwide review of voter lists.
One petitioner says the review was not authorized by law and asks the court to cancel it and related decisions.
Another petitioner wants an independent investigation into alleged wrongdoing.
The petitions point to reports that two other election commissioners objected to some decisions.
They also cite concerns those commissioners raised about voter software.
The Election Commission says their letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation, not policy or IT matters.
The court will hear the arguments, but the article does not report a ruling.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
One petitioner seeks to have the revision and related actions declared invalid, arguing they lacked legal authority and required procedures.
A second petition seeks an independent judicial inquiry commission or a special investigation team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
The petitions cite reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections to poll panel decisions and raised concerns about voter software.
The Election Commission of India said the commissioners’ letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation, not policy or IT division matters.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and petitioners Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
- What
- The court is scheduled to hear two petitions challenging Kumar’s functioning and the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- Where
- The Supreme Court of India.
- When
- Monday; the article does not specify the date.
- Why
- The petitions allege that actions relating to the electoral-roll revision lacked legal authority and seek an investigation into alleged conduct within the Election Commission.
Petitioners’ claims
Election Commission’s response
Authority and decision-making
Petitioners’ claims
The petitioners argue that the electoral-roll revision and related measures lacked statutory or constitutional authority, and that the commission’s powers belong to the Commission rather than the Chief Election Commissioner acting individually.
Election Commission’s response
The article reports no direct Election Commission response to these legal claims.
Commissioners’ letters
Petitioners’ claims
The petitions cite reported objections by Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to poll panel decisions and concerns they raised about voter software.
Election Commission’s response
The Election Commission said the letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and were unrelated to policy or IT division matters.
Investigation
Petitioners’ claims
Shailendra Mani Tripathi’s petition seeks an independent inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired top court judge, and alleges conduct that could carry personal criminal liability.
Election Commission’s response
The article does not report a response from Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission specifically addressing the requested investigation.
Key facts
- Petitions
- Two
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
- First petitioner
- Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh
- Second petitioner
- Delhi-based lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi
- Requested investigation
- An independent judicial inquiry commission or an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge
- Commissioners cited
- Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi
- Election Commission response
- It said the commissioners’ letters concerned an officer on deputation, not policy or IT division matters.
Quotes
Rakesh Kumar Singh
Patna resident and petitioner challenging the CEC’s functioning
“The constitutional text therefore deliberately separates membership of the Commission from the chairmanship of the Commission, and separates the chairmanship of the Commission from the Commission’s power.”
indianexpress.com
“Article 324(1) of the Constitution does not vest the superintendence, direction and control of elections in an individual Chief Election Commissioner. It vests those powers in a Commission.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to CEC’s ECI Functioning
Supreme Court to Hear Petitions Seeking CEC Suspension Over SIR
Supreme Court to Hear Pleas Seeking CEC Kumar’s Suspension
Supreme Court to Examine CEC’s Individual Powers Monday
Supreme Court to Hear Plea on ECI Decision-Making
Opposition Demands CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Removal Over SIR Dissent
Kavitha Says Electoral Reform Matters More Than Replacing CEC
Delhi Police Detain AAP Workers Amid Election Chief Protest
Sachin Pilot Accuses Election Chief of Undermining Election Commission Independence
Hyderabad Protest Condemns Alleged Harassment of Women Journalists
