New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday made it clear: it cannot pass an order based on a newspaper report, and will need a response from the Election Commission before deciding if the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar single-handedly exercised powers constitutionally designated for the entire multi-member poll panel.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Election Commission, seeking their response on the allegations that Chief Election Commissioner took decisions unilaterally in the poll body, without consensus from the two other Election Commissioners.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, urged the top court to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.
The bench said the decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority and that it presumed that this is how all decisions were taken.
“If it is found that the decisions were taken neither unanimously nor by a majority, they could be stayed,” the court said, adding it “cannot unilaterally conclude that all decisions were taken unilaterally”, cautioning it cannot put the cart before the horse.
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar
The controversy follows a report in The Indian Express saying Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally raised objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months over decisions on electoral rolls, voter registration, and the poll body’s technology systems.
READ | Huge Row After Report Flags 2 Election Commissioners Objected To Poll Panel Steps
The Election Commission, however, rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to institutional dissent over final decisions. The poll panel said that operational queries, inputs and suggestions raised during the draft stage were part of its standard administrative and decision-making process. It maintained that the decisions regarding the schedule of the SIR exercise were unanimous.
The court said it requires certified information on whether the decisions in question were taken unanimously or by a majority.
“You are relying on the newspaper report?” the court asked the petitioner.
“The Election Commission has not denied the news report allegations,” the petitioner claimed.
“Newspaper report may be 100% correct, partially correct or incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today. We would definitely want their response. If we find there were instances where law wasn’t followed, we can undo it,” the court said.
