SC issues notices to EC, Centre over pleas challenging unilateral poll panel decisions

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Election Commission and the Centre on pleas alleging that the poll panel took several decisions without the approval of the two election commissioners, saying it would annul any decision found to be contrary to law.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also indicated that it may examine the legal provision granting immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner even after demitting office.

"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.

The court, however, declined to pass an interim order restraining CEC Gyanesh Kumar from taking decisions until the petitions are finally decided.

Senior advocate Vikash Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought such a direction and also sought suspension of the CEC, arguing that citizens were concerned about the protection of voting rights.

The bench questioned the consequences of suspending the CEC, asking, "Who will conduct the elections?"

It said the Election Commission has to function in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

Singh submitted that the two election commissioners could discharge the functions and urged the court to direct the poll panel to take decisions only unanimously or by majority.

The bench said it first needed to hear the responses of the concerned parties before passing any order.

"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 CJI said.

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

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

Justice Bagchi questioned whether the court could reach such a conclusion without first 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," he said.

Singh also referred to a press release issued by the Election Commission after a controversy over a news report, claiming it amounted to an admission of the allegations.

The CJI said the court could not decide the issue solely on the basis of newspaper reports and would have to examine the responses of the EC and the Centre.

The Indian Express reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that they had been issued without their knowledge or recommendation.

The Election Commission, responding to the controversy, said differing views and observations were a normal part of institutional deliberations and asserted that its orders had full legal sanction and were issued in accordance with statutory procedures.

The Supreme Court directed the EC and the Centre to furnish all relevant details in their responses.

The court also asked senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Tripathi, to amend the prayers in the connected petition, observing that the reliefs sought were "all jumbled up".

The PIL filed by Singh, a Patna resident, seeks a determination on whether the CEC has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole. It seeks a declaration that any such actions are unauthorised and appropriate legal action against them.

The petition also seeks an interim direction preventing the CEC from exercising his functions pending final adjudication and asks that the Commission's business during that period be conducted by Sandhu and Joshi through unanimous decisions.

It further seeks that any appointment to a resulting vacancy be made on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.