The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Election Commission of India on a petition questioning whether Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar could take or authorise decisions on matters falling within the jurisdiction of the multi-member Election Commission without following the statutory procedure for collective decision-making.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made it clear that the court could not base its decision merely on newspaper reports and that the Election Commission’s response would be necessary before examining the allegations. The court’s intervention comes amid scrutiny of the functioning of the three-member poll panel following reports of differences between the CEC and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, seeks judicial examination of whether the Chief Election Commissioner had exercised powers that, under the Constitution and the governing law, belong to the Election Commission as a whole. The petitioner has sought appropriate legal action if the court finds that decisions were taken without following the prescribed decision-making process.
The case has assumed significance following an investigation by The Indian Express, which reported that Sandhu and Joshi had formally recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning decisions and orders relating to electoral rolls, voter registration and aspects of the Election Commission’s technology systems. According to the report, the two Commissioners had raised objections to certain decisions that they said were taken without their knowledge or concurrence.
The Election Commission, however, has disputed the interpretation of the reported differences. Its position, as reported in connection with the controversy, is that the communications cited by the two Commissioners to the Cabinet Secretary related to an officer on deputation and were not connected with policy or the functioning of the Commission’s IT division. The Commission has also maintained that its decisions were taken in accordance with the applicable legal framework.
The legal issue before the Supreme Court is particularly important because Article 324 of the Constitution vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission. The present Commission consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. The Election Commission’s own official website lists Gyanesh Kumar as CEC and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi as Election Commissioners.
The statutory framework governing the Commission’s functioning was further set out in the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Section 18 provides that the Commission may regulate its procedure and allocation of business by unanimous decision. It further states that business should, as far as possible, be conducted unanimously, but where the CEC and other Election Commissioners differ, the matter is to be decided according to the majority view.
This distinction is central to the case. The question is not simply whether the two Election Commissioners agreed with the CEC on every decision. Rather, the court will have to consider whether decisions attributed to the Election Commission were taken through the procedure prescribed by law and whether the constitutional and statutory role of the two other Commissioners was respected.
The controversy has gained additional importance because several of the reported disagreements relate to electoral rolls and voter registration. The Indian Express investigation reported objections concerning changes to Form 6, the process for adding and deleting names from electoral rolls, voter-data management and aspects of the software used by the poll panel. The two Commissioners were also reported to have raised concerns about the handling and integrity of electoral technology.
The issue also intersects with the wider legal and political controversy surrounding the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Petitions challenging aspects of the SIR process and the functioning of the Commission are already before the Supreme Court. The latest plea therefore places a specific institutional question before the court: whether the constitutional authority exercised in the name of the Election Commission was actually exercised through the Commission’s legally prescribed decision-making mechanism.
For now, the Supreme Court has not ruled that CEC Gyanesh Kumar acted unlawfully, nor has it accepted the allegations made in the petition. By seeking the Election Commission’s response, the court has given the poll panel an opportunity to place its position and the relevant records before the judiciary.
The next stage of the proceedings will therefore depend on the Election Commission’s response and the material placed before the court. The Supreme Court’s eventual examination could have wider implications for how a multi-member Election Commission conducts its business, records differences among its members and exercises the constitutional powers entrusted to it under Article 324.