Supreme Court hears challenge to CEC’s alleged unilateral decisions amid protests

The Supreme Court on Monday began hearing petitions seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while declining to grant immediate interim relief. The cases challenge decisions taken under Kumar’s leadership and allege that the Election Commission acted without the approval of the two other election commissioners. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.

Mohana issued notice in the proceedings. The Hindu reported that the court will tag one petition with an earlier case and examine relevant records rather than rely solely on newspaper reports or allegations. The petitions argue that decisions, guidelines and software changes were made without collective approval, potentially undermining the multi-member structure of the Election Commission.

India Today said the applications seek to have actions taken without full commission concurrence declared unconstitutional or void, and in one case request criminal proceedings against Kumar and other officials. The challenge includes the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. A petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeks an independent judicial inquiry or special investigation team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

It calls for an end-to-end audit of Election Commission databases and an investigation into the alleged deletion of 13 crore names across 30 states and Union territories. The allegations also concern Form 6, used for voter registration. According to India Today’s account of the petition, software changes added information about ancestry and links to an earlier revision exercise without the statutory amendment the petitioner says was required.

The application claims the other commissioners objected to those changes. Other disputed matters cited in the petition include the restoration of 97 eligible voters in Goa and more than 16.10 lakh appeals filed in West Bengal against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers. The petitioner says the other commissioners and West Bengal’s chief electoral officer were unaware of or had not authorised those appeals.

The Election Commission has rejected the broader criticism, saying differing views are normal in institutional deliberations and that its orders have full legal sanction and follow established procedures. The court also questioned whether it could presume that orders were issued unilaterally before reviewing the records. During the hearing, senior advocates Vikas Singh and Menaka Guruswamy pressed for action against Kumar.

Singh urged the court to require unanimous decision-making until the cases are resolved, warning that public confidence in the commission had been badly damaged. Justice Bagchi noted the need to frame petitions with the Constitution’s functioning in mind, while the bench discussed the protection given to the CEC under Section 16 of the 2023 law. The litigation comes amid street demonstrations.

Aam Aadmi Party workers marched to India Gate demanding Kumar’s resignation, while the court agreed to list a petition alleging that Delhi Police had blocked peaceful demonstrations and marches to Jantar Mantar. Separately, journalists and activists continued protesting outside Parliament Street police station over a woman journalist’s allegation that ACP Vivek Bhagat sexually harassed and manhandled her; The Hindu reported she was detained again on Monday. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the election petitions is continuing.