SC issues notice to Centre, EC on plea seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s suspension, may annul decisions if they breached law

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea seeking the suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, saying that while it presumes the poll panel’s decisions are in accordance with law, “if any decision taken by the Election Commission is found not to be in accordance with law, then we will annul it.”

The bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission within a week on the plea challenging the manner in which decisions were taken by the CEC-led poll panel.

The court said it “presumes” that decisions taken by the Election Commission are as per law, even as it agreed to examine the petitioner's allegations that Kumar took decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.


Also Read: 'If he has any sense of shame, Gyanesh Kumar must quit right away': Congress' Jairam Ramesh reiterates demand for CEC's resignation

"We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the court," the bench said as it pointed out that the immunity granted to the CEC is something which even judges don't have.

The bench also issued notice on a connected petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi and tagged it with Singh's petition.

The bench said that if the CEC is suspended, the functioning of the Election Commission (EC) would be stalled. “Who will conduct the elections?” the bench asked, adding that the poll panel has to function in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

Singh submitted that the two other Election Commissioners could discharge the functions.

The bench said it would have to seek responses from the persons concerned before passing any order.

Singh then submitted that the court should direct the EC to take decisions only unanimously or by majority.

“There is a mandatory law and we expect them to follow it. If there is any violation, we can very well undo it. If there is no unanimity or majority as mandated under the law, then the court can very well annul those decisions,” the Chief Justice said.

The bench said it could not pass any order ex parte and needed to examine the decisions taken by the poll panel.

Singh submitted that the electoral roll itself had been “vitiated” because of the alleged unilateral decisions by the CEC.

Justice Bagchi asked whether the court could pass such an order ex parte, without hearing the respondents.

“If records show some decision was not unanimous etc., we will injunct those decisions and say they are ultra vires. Can we ex parte come to a decision that all decisions were unilateral? We expect them to respond in a clear, transparent manner,” Justice Bagchi said.

What the plea against CEC Gyanesh Kumar says

The PIL seeks suspension of Kumar until the petitions challenging decisions taken under his leadership are considered. It also questions whether powers vested in the multi-member Election Commission were exercised individually by the CEC.

The petitions before the top court come against the backdrop of the wider political row over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and allegations by Opposition parties that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took key decisions without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The controversy intensified after an Indian Express report said Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months on issues including voter additions and deletions, restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the handling of electoral-roll data.

Opposition parties have alleged that the SIR process could exclude genuine voters and have questioned the Election Commission's handling of electoral-roll revisions. Congress, TMC, AAP, SP, DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT) and Left parties have sought Kumar's resignation or removal, while some leaders have also demanded criminal action and cancellation of SIR. The allegations have not been independently established.

Also Read: Keralam Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala orders Vigilance probe against Gyanesh Kumar over 2006 case

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion of unilateral decision-making, saying differences and written observations are part of internal deliberations and that its final decisions, including those on SIR, were unanimous.

SIR row spills onto streets

The political row also spilled onto the streets, with Opposition-led protests reported in several states. The Indian Youth Congress marched towards Jantar Mantar in Delhi, while demonstrations were held in states including Bihar, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka, where Congress protesters demanded Kumar's resignation and an end to SIR.

Separately, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) held a protest at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park on October 2, demanding Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise and seeking criminal proceedings against him. Thousands attended the protest despite police denying permission for the gathering.

Also Read: Gandhi, Nehru & Ambedkar invoked in Gyanesh Kumar row: CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke tells CEC, 'It’s done, bro'

Mumbai Police later registered an FIR against the organisers and 400-500 unidentified people, citing unlawful assembly and other offences. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has threatened to take the agitation to Delhi if Kumar does not resign.

What the petitioners are challenging

Petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh has questioned whether Kumar exercised powers vested in the multi-member Election Commission without following the collective decision-making process. The plea relies on Section 18 of the 2023 law governing the CEC and Election Commissioners, which provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and that a majority view prevails when there is a difference of opinion.

The petitions also challenge specific actions, including alleged changes to Form 6 and other electoral-roll processes, and seek directions including suspension of Kumar pending the case. Another plea seeks criminal proceedings over alleged unilateral decisions.