SC Declines To Suspend CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Seeks Response On Poll Body Decisions

(MENAFN- Live Mint) Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to immediately restrain Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar from functioning, while issuing notice on a petition challenging decisions taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and questioning provisions of the law governing the poll panel.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said it would examine the records and seek the ECI's response before considering any interim directions.

Senior counsel Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Singh, sought an immediate order restraining Kumar from functioning as CEC, arguing that his continuation in office could affect the credibility of the electoral process.“Some interim order will be required, otherwise this will go on... otherwise this country will burn,” Singh submitted.

Quick answers to key questions

.5 QUESTIONS1What action did the Supreme Court take regarding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's status?⌵

The Supreme Court declined to suspend Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued a notice to the Election Commission of India for a response on the petition challenging ECI decisions.

2Why are allegations being made against Gyanesh Kumar's actions as CEC?⌵

Allegations against Gyanesh Kumar stem from claims that he made unilateral decisions without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners, potentially violating the decision-making protocols established for the Election Commission.

3How will the Supreme Court proceed with the case against Gyanesh Kumar?⌵

The Supreme Court plans to examine the records and seek responses from the Election Commission regarding the allegations, and it may consider interim orders based on this examination.

4What is the significance of the decisions made by the Election Commission's CEC?⌵

The decisions made by the CEC are significant as they impact the credibility of the electoral process in India, with concerns raised over the adherence to the mandated collective decision-making framework.

5Should the Election Commission's decisions be unanimous or by majority?⌵

According to the law, decisions by the Election Commission should ideally be made unanimously; if that is not possible, they should be made by majority to ensure valid and collective governance.

The court said it would examine whether the statutory scheme had been followed and asked the ECI to respond. The court said it will examine the material submitted before any interim order can be passed.

Senior lawyer Meneka Guruswamy, who appeared before the court in a connected plea, said voting rights of citizens are under threat and alleged that the CEC is biased. The petition was filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking directions to declare all the decisions which Gyanesh Kumar took without the concurrence of majority of Election Commissioners as illegal and void.

The court had clubbed the matter and issued notice in the petition seeking ECI's response on allegations that several decisions related to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were taken unilaterally by the CEC.

The matter will be heard next week. A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

Queries emailed to ECI seeking responses were not answered till press time.

Form 6 claims

Notably, the bench said that the modified Form 6, which is used for inclusion of names in the electoral list during the process of Special Intensive Revision (SIR), was not approved by the Supreme Court.

The ECI, however, claimed that the new declaration, which is linked to the online filing of Form 6 in the ongoing SIR process in some states, was approved by the apex court.

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When the record is produced, we would like to see who has modified," the bench observed.

The petitions were filed in the Supreme Court after The Indian Express reported that 14 important decisions were taken by the ECI with only the CEC approving them, while the other two election commissioners objected.

MENAFN05102026007365015876ID1111761048