India’s Supreme Court has sought responses from the Election Commission and the central government over allegations concerning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions. The court said that any Election Commission decision found to be unlawful could be overturned, but it would not order the CEC’s temporary suspension without first hearing the other side.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notices to the Election Commission, Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg, the commission’s IT department chief Seema Khanna, and the central government. They have been asked to respond within one week.
What the Court Is Examining
The proceedings relate to allegations about the functioning of the Election Commission, including claims that some decisions were taken without the agreement of the other commissioners.
The petitioners referred to reports alleging that the two other election commissioners had raised objections on several occasions over the past 10 months. Questions were also raised about the way meeting agendas and records of discussions were handled.
Another major issue concerns changes reportedly made to Form 6, which is used for adding new voters to electoral rolls. The petitioners argue that the Election Commission does not have the authority to make certain changes to the form.
Dispute Over the Special Revision Process
The case is also connected to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. One petition has called for an investigation into allegations that millions of names were removed during the process.
The petitioners have also sought an interim measure against the CEC until the cases are resolved. However, the Supreme Court indicated that it needs to hear the Election Commission’s response before taking such a step.
Supreme Court Wants Evidence, Not Only Media Reports
During the hearing, the judges stressed that courts cannot make decisions solely on the basis of newspaper reports. The bench said reports may be completely accurate, partly accurate or incorrect, so the response of the concerned authorities must also be considered.
The court also made clear that if official records eventually show that a decision was taken improperly or outside the law, it can intervene and cancel that decision.
Form 6 Becomes a Key Point
Form 6 is used by people seeking to register as new voters. According to the allegations presented in court, changes to the online voter-registration process now require applicants to provide information about whether their parents or grandparents appeared on the 2002 electoral roll.
Opposition groups and some young voters have questioned whether these changes could make it harder for new voters to enter the electoral system. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that its decisions have been made according to the law and that differences of opinion within a multi-member institution are part of democratic functioning.
The Supreme Court’s next steps will depend on the explanations and documents submitted by the Election Commission and the government. The case could therefore become significant for the administration of India’s electoral rolls and the powers exercised by the country’s election authorities.
