Supreme Court Defers Immediate Action on CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Seeks Election Commission’s Response

New Delhi – On Monday the Supreme Court refrained from issuing any provisional order against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, despite petitions challenging his conduct and the internal decision‑making of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the Court directed the Commission to submit a written reply along with all pertinent documents before any further step is taken.

Court Requests the ECI’s Explanation First

The three‑judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and joined by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohan, issued a formal 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 answer and supporting records. At this stage, no suspension, removal, or limitation of the Chief Election Commissioner’s duties has been ordered.

Petitioners’ Principal Claims

The pleadings assert that several decisions, which under the law must be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly made unilaterally by the CEC. Rakesh Kumar Singh seeks an interim direction that bars Gyanesh Kumar from acting as Chief Election Commissioner until the case is resolved, and that the Commission’s functioning 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 breaches of their statutory duties.

Dispute Over Collective Decision‑Making

The petitioners invoke the 2023 amendment to the Election Commission Act, arguing that internal disagreements must be settled through the prescribed decision‑making mechanism, including the majority‑rule principle where appropriate. They contend that certain powers, which belong to the Commission as a whole, were exercised solely by the CEC, and they raise concerns about changes to election‑related software.

The Election Commission maintains that all its orders are legally sound and that differing opinions 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, has become another flashpoint. The petitioners claim that the Election Commission introduced amendments through election software – such as new requirements about ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises – without following the mandated legal procedure.

Regional Cases: Goa and West Bengal

• Goa: Petitioners assert that, although instructions were issued to restore the names of 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.

Next Steps After the EC’s Reply

The Supreme Court has not treated the allegations as established facts at this juncture. It is awaiting the Election Commission’s detailed response and accompanying records before deciding whether any further judicial intervention is warranted. The Commission’s submission will be pivotal in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.