New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court chose not to grant any provisional injunction against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions challenging his conduct and the decision‑making protocol of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the court has instructed the commission to submit a written response together with all pertinent documents before any further step is taken.
Court Wants the Commission’s Narrative First
The three‑judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and joined by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, issued a notice to the Election Commission in response to petitions filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The judges made it clear that they will assess the allegations only after reviewing the commission’s reply and the supporting records. At this stage, no suspension, removal, or limitation of the CEC’s functions has been ordered.
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
The pleadings argue that several decisions, which the law mandates be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly made unilaterally by the CEC. Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks an interim order that bars Gyanesh Kumar from acting as Chief Election Commissioner until the matter is finally resolved, and that the commission’s operations during that period reflect the unanimous view of the other two commissioners.
In a separate filing, Shailendra Mani Tripathi requests criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, alleging breach of statutory duties.
Dispute Over Collective Decision‑Making
The petitioners invoke the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, contending that internal disagreements must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority principle where appropriate. They assert that certain powers, which belong to the commission as a whole, were exercised by the CEC alone, and they raise concerns about changes to election‑related software.
The Election Commission counters that all its orders are legally sound and that divergent views among members are a normal feature of any deliberative body.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) Under Scrutiny
The petitions also spotlight the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Citing a media report, the petitioners allege that the two other Election Commissioners repeatedly objected to specific SIR decisions over the past ten months.
Controversy Over Form‑6 Modifications
Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, emerges as another flashpoint. The petitioners claim the Election Commission introduced changes via election software – such as new requirements regarding ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises – without following the legally mandated procedure.
Regional Cases: Goa and West Bengal
- Goa: Petitioners argue that although instructions were issued to reinstate 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑add them.
- West Bengal: The filings reference more than 1.61 million appeals related to the state’s electoral‑roll process.
What Comes Next After the EC’s Response
The Supreme Court has not treated the allegations as established facts at this juncture. Instead, it awaits the Election Commission’s detailed response and accompanying records before deciding whether any further judicial intervention is warranted. The commission’s submission will be decisive in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.
