The Supreme Court of India has refused to pass an interim order to suspend Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, even as it agreed to hear petitions alleging that he took unilateral decisions without the consent of the other two Election Commissioners. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday, seeking its formal response to a batch of petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The refusal to grant immediate interim relief—specifically the suspension of the CEC—does not absolve Kumar of the allegations; rather, the Court has opted to hear the ECI’s defense before making any sweeping judicial pronouncements on the matter.
The Core Allegation: Undermining the Multi-Member Structure
The foundational issue raised in the Supreme Court centers on the legal and constitutional limits of the Chief Election Commissioner’s power. The petitions argue that the Election Commission is fundamentally designed as a multi-member body where decisions must be taken collectively.
Petitioners allege that Gyanesh Kumar exercised powers that are legally mandated for the full Election Commission, bypassing his colleagues, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. According to the pleas, the two commissioners formally recorded written dissents and objections on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period, including four times on a single day, objecting to actions taken in the name of the ECI.
The petitioners rely heavily on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which stipulates that when the commissioners differ, the majority view prevails. The core argument is that the law explicitly requires decisions to be taken together, and any unilateral action by the CEC undermines the institutional independence and multi-member character of the poll panel.
Software Changes and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
The most contentious allegations involve the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and specific, allegedly unauthorized changes made to the Election Commission’s software.
The petitions outline several key irregularities:
- Form 6 Alterations: The plea alleges that Form 6, the standard voter registration form, was altered via the poll panel’s software to include a mandatory requirement for ancestral details and a “last SIR linkage” for first-time voters. The petitioners claim this requirement was added without the necessary legal amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and that the other two commissioners actively objected to the change.
- Data Manipulation Allegations: Regarding the Delhi SIR, the petition claims that prominent names flagged for notices were improperly marked as ‘shifted’ or ‘absent’ before their records were allegedly changed under a “mark VIP” designation.
- State-Specific Irregularities: The pleas also raise concerns in specific states. In Goa, it is alleged that the software lacked a feature to restore 97 eligible voters despite explicit directions to verify them. In West Bengal, the petition claims that over 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the EC’s name against voters whose names had been restored by judicial officers, allegedly without the knowledge or approval of the other two commissioners or the state’s chief electoral officer.
The Call for a SIT Probe and the Question of Immunity
The legal challenge goes beyond seeking administrative suspension; the petitions are actively pushing for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, arguing that he should be subjected to police investigation and trial like an “ordinary accused”.
The petitioners argue that the statutory protection available under Section 16 of the 2023 Act becomes entirely ineffective if the actions taken are legally incoherent or malicious. “Intentionally manipulating records, committing forgery, or subverting the constitutional electoral process in the course of discharging official duties can under no circumstances be treated as an integral part of those duties,” the petition stated.
Furthermore, from a constitutional standpoint, the plea argues that under Article 361 of the Constitution, absolute personal immunity from criminal proceedings is conferred solely upon the President and Governors, not the CEC. The petition asserts that Article 324 merely grants the CEC security of tenure, not immunity from personal criminal liability, stating that the Election Commission operates “subject to the rule of law and is not a law unto itself”.
The ECI’s Defense and Political Fallout
Prior to the Supreme Court hearing, the Election Commission maintained that differing views are a standard, normal part of discussions within any robust institution. The ECI has asserted that all of its orders are legally valid and strictly follow set procedures.
However, the legal battle is unfolding against a backdrop of intense political pressure and public protest. The opposition INDIA bloc is reportedly mulling joint action, including a potential fresh notice for the CEC’s removal. Civic groups, such as the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), have organized massive protests, including a recent “Jail Bharo Andolan” in Mumbai that drew thousands demanding Kumar’s resignation. Further protests, dubbed “Jantar Mantar 2.0,” have been announced for Delhi later this week.
As the Supreme Court awaits the Election Commission’s formal response to these grave allegations, the institutional integrity of India’s electoral body is under unprecedented public and judicial scrutiny.
* Conceptual illustration generated using AI