New Delhi. The Supreme Court has refused to pass any ex-parte interim order on petitions seeking immediate suspension of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. The division bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made it clear that such a step cannot be taken merely on the basis of media reports without hearing the side of the defendants. The court has issued notices to the Central Government, Election Commission (ECI) and other officials including CEC and sought their response.
To whom were the notices issued:
The Supreme Court has sought replies from the Central Government, ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Manish Garg and DG (IT) Seema Khanna.
Serious allegations made in the petitions
The hearing was being held on petitions filed (by Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shailendra Mani Tripathi) based on a report by 'The Indian Express' (CEC Gyanesh Kumar). Senior advocates Vikas Singh and Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, presented the following claims before the court.
- 14 unilateral decisions: It is alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar single-handedly took 14 important decisions related to Special Intensive Revision (SIR), ignoring the objections of the other two Election Commissioners, which is a violation of Section 18 of the CEC Act (decision by unanimity or majority).
- Claim to remove 13 crore names: The petition claims that around 13 crore names have been removed from the voter lists of 30 states and union territories during the SIR process.
- Main demands: Immediate suspension of the CEC, quashing of the alleged 14 decisions, SIT investigation headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, forensic audit of ECINet and ERONet databases, and prosecution of the officials responsible.
Important comments of Supreme Court
Taking a tough stance on the demand for suspension Supreme Court (CEC Gyanesh Kumar) raised several practical and legal questions:
- “Who will conduct the elections?”: When the petitioner's counsel sought immediate suspension of the CEC citing the seriousness of the situation, the bench questioned that if he was removed, who would handle the functioning of the commission and who would conduct the elections.
- No order based only on newspaper report: CJI Surya Kant said that the Supreme Court cannot pass such a big order only on the basis of newspaper reports.
- Awaiting reply: Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that if the record proves that the decisions were not taken unanimously, then the court can set aside those decisions by declaring them 'ultra vires'. However, before doing so, it is mandatory for all concerned parties (respondents) to be heard.