सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सीईसी ज्ञानेश कुमार की निलंबन की याचिकाएँ सुनी

Supreme Court to hear pleas seeking suspension of Gyanesh Kumar over EC decisions

The Supreme Court will hear pleas seeking Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's suspension over alleged unilateral decisions. The case could test whether the Election Commission's collective decision-making mandate was breached.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioning how the Election Commission, led by him, took certain decisions. The petitions allege that a series of decisions, guidelines and software changes were made without the approval of the two other election commissioners.

The pleas also ask the court to examine whether Kumar exercised powers that belong to the Election Commission as a whole, in violation of the requirement of collective decision-making. One of the petitions has sought criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, while another has asked that decisions taken without full commission concurrence be declared invalid.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is scheduled to hear the pleas filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Singh, a Patna resident, has asked the court to determine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the full Election Commission and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

One of the prayers in Singh's PIL says, "Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India." The petition says Kumar should be suspended until the case is finally heard in order to preserve the "multi-member character of the Election Commission".

The plea comes against the backdrop of an Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had, on record, objected at least 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions and orders on Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. Responding to the criticism, the Election Commission said differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution, and that all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.

The petition has made the Union Law Ministry, the Election Commission, Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg parties to the case. Tripathi's plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, alleges that the CEC's actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making. It also seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for breach of official duty.

Tripathi's petition states, "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." The plea relies on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, especially Section 18, which says that the Election Commission must take decisions as a body and that, where there is a difference of opinion, the view of the majority will prevail.

One of the main issues raised in the plea is the change to Form 6, used by people to register as voters. The petition alleges that details related to ancestry and a link with the previous Special Intensive Revision were introduced through the Election Commission's software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules. According to the plea, the two election commissioners other than Kumar objected to this and said the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.

The petition further says, "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." It also refers to concerns over the handling of electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal. In Goa, it alleges that the software did not have the feature to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification. In West Bengal, the petitioner has claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission's name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.

The plea says the other two election commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were not aware of these appeals and had not authorised them. The Supreme Court is now set to hear the petitions, which seek both immediate relief against the CEC and a wider examination of whether major decisions of the poll panel were taken without the approval required under law.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioning how the Election Commission, led by him, took certain decisions. The petitions allege that a series of decisions, guidelines and software changes were made without the approval of the two other election commissioners.

The pleas also ask the court to examine whether Kumar exercised powers that belong to the Election Commission as a whole, in violation of the requirement of collective decision-making. One of the petitions has sought criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, while another has asked that decisions taken without full commission concurrence be declared invalid.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is scheduled to hear the pleas filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Singh, a Patna resident, has asked the court to determine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the full Election Commission and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

One of the prayers in Singh's PIL says, "Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India." The petition says Kumar should be suspended until the case is finally heard in order to preserve the "multi-member character of the Election Commission".

The plea comes against the backdrop of an Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had, on record, objected at least 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions and orders on Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. Responding to the criticism, the Election Commission said differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution, and that all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.

The petition has made the Union Law Ministry, the Election Commission, Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg parties to the case. Tripathi's plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, alleges that the CEC's actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making. It also seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for breach of official duty.

Tripathi's petition states, "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." The plea relies on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, especially Section 18, which says that the Election Commission must take decisions as a body and that, where there is a difference of opinion, the view of the majority will prevail.

One of the main issues raised in the plea is the change to Form 6, used by people to register as voters. The petition alleges that details related to ancestry and a link with the previous Special Intensive Revision were introduced through the Election Commission's software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules. According to the plea, the two election commissioners other than Kumar objected to this and said the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.

The petition further says, "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." It also refers to concerns over the handling of electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal. In Goa, it alleges that the software did not have the feature to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification. In West Bengal, the petitioner has claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission's name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.

The plea says the other two election commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were not aware of these appeals and had not authorised them. The Supreme Court is now set to hear the petitions, which seek both immediate relief against the CEC and a wider examination of whether major decisions of the poll panel were taken without the approval required under law.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a batch of pleas seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and questioning how the Election Commission, led by him, took certain decisions. The petitions allege that a series of decisions, guidelines and software changes were made without the approval of the two other election commissioners.

The pleas also ask the court to examine whether Kumar exercised powers that belong to the Election Commission as a whole, in violation of the requirement of collective decision-making. One of the petitions has sought criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, while another has asked that decisions taken without full commission concurrence be declared invalid.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana is scheduled to hear the pleas filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Singh, a Patna resident, has asked the court to determine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the full Election Commission and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

One of the prayers in Singh's PIL says, "Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India." The petition says Kumar should be suspended until the case is finally heard in order to preserve the "multi-member character of the Election Commission".

The plea comes against the backdrop of an Indian Express report which claimed that election commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had, on record, objected at least 14 times in the last 10 months to decisions and orders on Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls that were issued without their knowledge or recommendation. Responding to the criticism, the Election Commission said differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution, and that all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.

The petition has made the Union Law Ministry, the Election Commission, Kumar, Sandhu, Joshi and senior poll panel official Maneesh Garg parties to the case. Tripathi's plea, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, alleges that the CEC's actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making. It also seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for breach of official duty.

Tripathi's petition states, "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." The plea relies on the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, especially Section 18, which says that the Election Commission must take decisions as a body and that, where there is a difference of opinion, the view of the majority will prevail.

One of the main issues raised in the plea is the change to Form 6, used by people to register as voters. The petition alleges that details related to ancestry and a link with the previous Special Intensive Revision were introduced through the Election Commission's software without the statutory amendment required under the electoral rules. According to the plea, the two election commissioners other than Kumar objected to this and said the prescribed form could not be altered without following the statutory procedure.

The petition further says, "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." It also refers to concerns over the handling of electoral roll revisions in Goa and West Bengal. In Goa, it alleges that the software did not have the feature to restore 97 eligible electors despite directions for their verification. In West Bengal, the petitioner has claimed that more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the Election Commission's name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers.

The plea says the other two election commissioners and the West Bengal chief electoral officer were not aware of these appeals and had not authorised them. The Supreme Court is now set to hear the petitions, which seek both immediate relief against the CEC and a wider examination of whether major decisions of the poll panel were taken without the approval required under law.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News