Trouble for Gyanesh Kumar? Plea filed in Supreme Court seeking prosecution of CEC

Filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeks prosecution of Gyanesh Kumar, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna for alleged dereliction of duty under the Representation of the People (RP) Act.

The PIL also seeks to have decisions, guidelines and software modifications allegedly undertaken by Kumar without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners declared unconstitutional and void.

The petition also demanded reinstatement of the original 'Form 6' and an investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into how 13 crore voters' names were excluded from the electoral roll during the ongoing SIR.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court advocate Brajesh Singh has sought the consent of Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kumar.

According to LiveLaw, Singh made the request in a letter to the Attorney General on September 24, invoking Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.

Advocate alleges violation of Supreme Court judgments

Singh referred to reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections to several decisions concerning the functioning of the poll panel.

Citing the reported objections, Singh alleged that certain decisions amounted to a departure from the constitutionally mandated functioning of the three-member Election Commission.

He also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, arguing that the Election Commission is required to function as a multi-member constitutional body and that the CEC is the "first among equals" rather than an absolute authority.

Singh further argued that the CEC is not "mightier than the institution" and that decisions of the multi-member ECI are decisions of the Commission rather than those of its chairperson.

Investigative report on SIR

The controversy follows a report by The Indian Express that detailed differences within the three-member Election Commission involving CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

According to the investigation, Sandhu and Joshi formally raised objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months to decisions and orders concerning electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). They reportedly said some decisions had been taken without their knowledge.

The objections covered changes to Form 6, access to the electoral-roll database, deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals related to electoral rolls and aspects of the ECI's internal decision-making.

The two Election Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns over what they described as the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database.

Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) at the constituency level have statutory responsibility for preparing and maintaining electoral rolls.

According to the investigation, Joshi called for an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could alter the voter database, while Sandhu recorded complaints from state-level officials that they did not have "proper and complete access" to the relevant systems.

The report also said the two Commissioners separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan over changes in the ECI's work allocation that they felt could further concentrate control over the IT systems handling electoral rolls.

Election Commission rejects claims of internal rift

The Election Commission has disputed the interpretation of the report, saying written objections, suggestions and differing views are part of its internal deliberative process.

EC sources said all decisions, including those concerning the SIR, were taken with the approval of all three Election Commissioners and were unanimous.