SIR Row: Supreme Court Refuses To Pass Interim Order On Suspending CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Issues Notices To EC, Centre

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Supreme Court refused on Monday to pass any interim order to suspend the Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Instead, it issued a notice to the Election Commission and the Centre, seeking responses within a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel, led by CEC Kumar, allegedly took decisions without the approval of two Election Commissioners.

An Indian Express investigation alleged that Gyanesh Kumar made decisions unilaterally in the Election Commission of India, without consensus from the two other Election Commissioners.

The case against Gyanesh Kumar: What we know so far

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant observed that it should first seek the response of the Election Commission and other respondents on the allegations that several SIR-related decisions were taken unilaterally by the CEC.

According to Live Law, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sindhu, Dr Vivek Joshi, Dy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg IAS and DG(IT) Seema Khanna, seeking a response on the allegations made in the plea.

On the controversy surrounding the change in Form 6, CJI Kant said, "Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record has been produced, we would like to see who has modified..."

'We will take those decisions back if...'

The Supreme Court indicated that if, after considering the ECIs response, it finds that certain decisions were taken by CEC without the required unanimity, it could reconsider or recall those decisions.

“After notice, if they come and show that ABC decisions were taken without unanimity, we will take those decisions back” it said.

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. "They are expected to take unanimous decisions...if there is no unanimity, it has to be by majority...,” CJI Kant said, as per Live Law.

Meanwhile, Justice Bagchi was quoted as saying,“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra-vires. Can we ex-parte come to decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner."

Plea against Gyanesh Kumar

The Supreme Court was hearing pleas against the Election Commission of India concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

A plea, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, challenged the manner in which the ECI is functioning, alleging that powers vested in the poll panel as a multi-member constitutional body are being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism mandated by law.

The PIL urged the Supreme Court to determine whether Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

As an interim relief, the petitioner seeks the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar as the CEC.

The case was filed following the Indian Express report on September 25 which claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

Under fire over the red flags raised by two of its commissioners, the Election Commission rejected the suggestion that the reported objections amounted to institutional dissent over final decisions.

The Election Commission asserted that differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations in any institution.

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. The ECI stated that the decisions regarding the schedule of the SIR exercise were unanimous.

(With inputs from PTI, ANI)

MENAFN05102026007365015876ID1111760272