सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सीईसी ग्यानेश कुमार को निलंबित न करने का आदेश देते हुए चुनाव आयोग पर नोटिस जारी किया

IndiaSC refuses to suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, issues notice on plea challenging ECI decision

The bench said it presumed that this was how decisions were being taken and indicated that it wanted to hear the poll panel on the allegation of one-man decision-making.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Centre, seeking their detailed responses within a week to a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel, led by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, allegedly took certain decisions without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners.

The court, however, refused to suspend Kumar over the allegations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, and issued the notice while observing that the ECI must function collectively.

The bench observed that decisions of the ECI have to be either unanimous or taken by majority. It said it presumed that this was how decisions were being taken and indicated that it wanted to hear the poll panel on the allegation of one-man decision-making.

The court also cautioned that suspending the CEC ex parte could stall the functioning of the ECI and affect elections. “Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked.

Singh replied that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the functions of the Commission. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in the Anoop Baranwal case, which held that Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India, as well as the subsequent law passed by Parliament. He argued that the institution’s independence requires collective decision-making to avoid any perception of bias.

The bench said it could not pass any order without hearing the respondents. Singh then urged the court to direct the ECI to take decisions only unanimously or by majority until the relevant records were produced.

Responding to the submissions, the CJI said, “There is a mandatory law, and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we will undo it.”

The plea, filed by a former bureaucrat and others, alleges that several important decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and other states, rationalisation of polling booths and enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, were taken by the CEC alone without circulating the files to the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The petitioners contend that this violates the constitutional mandate governing the functioning of the poll panel.

The plea states that the ECI is a multi-member body under Article 324 of the Constitution, and under the Election Commission (Transaction of Business) Rules, decisions must be taken unanimously or by majority where there is a difference of opinion. The CEC, it argues, is first among equals and does not have overriding powers over the other commissioners.

The petition further alleges that the current CEC has been functioning as a single-member commission, taking decisions on matters ranging from voter-roll revision to booth rationalisation.

Singh cited media reports and RTI replies to claim that files were not placed before the two other Election Commissioners and that decisions were communicated directly from the CEC’s office to state Chief Electoral Officers, bypassing the collegial decision-making process.

The bench asked Singh whether there was any specific instance in which the two Election Commissioners had recorded dissent or complained about being bypassed, observing that without a concrete instance, the case could remain abstract.

Singh submitted that the two Election Commissioners may not be in a position to publicly express disagreement because of institutional hierarchy. However, he argued that the procedure allegedly followed was contrary to law, affected free and fair elections and eroded public trust in the ECI.

The CJI-led bench said it was not examining the merits of the allegations at this stage but acknowledged that the issue raised concerned institutional integrity and fair elections.

“We are issuing notice. We presume decisions in the Election Commission are taken unanimously or by majority as per rules. Let the Election Commission file its affidavit,” the CJI said.

The court directed the Election Commission and the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to file their responses within one week and posted the matter for further hearing on October 13.

The petition seeks directions to the ECI to disclose its decision-making process, place all files relating to SIR and other policy decisions before the full commission, and declare void any decision taken without the concurrence of the majority. It also seeks implementation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions on transparent functioning of the ECI and protection of its multi-member character.

The New Indian Express

www.newindianexpress.com

Powered by Nyaya 247 News