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 directive against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, even as several petitions challenge his conduct and the internal decision‑making of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Instead, the Court has asked the Commission to submit a written reply together with the relevant records before any further step is taken.

The Court Wants the ECI’s Narrative First

The 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 documents. At this stage, no suspension, removal, or limitation of the Chief Election Commissioner’s duties has been ordered.

Core Contentions of the Petitioners

The filings allege that a number of decisions, which the law mandates to be taken collectively by the three Election Commissioners, were allegedly taken unilaterally by the CEC. Singh seeks an interim order that bars Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner until the dispute is resolved, and that the Commission’s actions during that period reflect the unanimous stance of the other two commissioners.

In a separate petition, Tripathi requests criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials, accusing them of breaching their statutory duties.

Debate 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 principle where applicable. They contend that certain powers, which belong to the Commission as a whole, were exercised by the CEC alone, and they raise concerns about modifications to election‑related software.

The Election Commission, for its part, maintains 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) of Electoral Rolls Under Scrutiny

The petitions also spotlight the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process for electoral rolls. Citing a media report, the petitioners claim that the two other Election Commissioners repeatedly objected to specific SIR decisions over the past ten months.

Controversy Surrounding Form‑6 Changes

Form‑6, the voter‑registration form, emerges as another flashpoint. The petitioners argue that the Election Commission introduced alterations via election software—such as new requirements about ancestors’ details and links to prior SIR exercises—without adhering to the mandated legal procedure.

Regional Disputes: Goa and West Bengal

• Goa: Petitioners contend that, although instructions were issued to reinstate 97 eligible voters, the software lacked a mechanism to re‑add those names.
• West Bengal: The petitions reference more than 1.61 million appeals related to the state’s electoral‑roll process.

What Comes Next After the EC’s Reply?

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 pivotal in determining whether the contested decisions complied with statutory requirements and the collective decision‑making framework prescribed for the body.

"The judiciary’s role is to ensure that constitutional bodies operate within the bounds of the law, not to pre‑emptively dictate their internal dynamics," observed legal analyst Arvind Mehta.