Key Takeaways From Supreme Court's Observations On Top Poll Officer Row

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Election Commission and the Centre on a batch of pleas seeking suspension of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by him took decisions, allegedly without the approval of two election commissioners -- Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it cannot pass an order based on a newspaper report, and said it would need a response from the Election Commission before deciding if Kumar can single-handedly exercise powers constitutionally designated for the entire multi-member poll panel.

The Election Commission -- which is facing the backlash after a news report claimed differences between Kumar, and two election commissioners, Sandhu and Joshi, over decisions and orders related to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and the Centre have been told to reply within a week.

Here Are Supreme Court's Top Observations

"A news report may be 100% correct, partially correct or incorrect. We cannot pass an order on that basis today. We would definitely want their response."

"If any decision taken by Election Commission is found not to be in accordance with law, then we will annul it."

"Decisions of Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority."

"We presume that decisions are taken by Election Commission as per law."

"Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let's be clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified."

What The Plea Said

The pleas, filed by a Patna resident, Rakesh Kumar Singh, and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, challenged the decisions, guidelines and software changes allegedly made by Gyanesh Kumar without the concurrence of his two colleagues.

The PIL urged the top court to determine whether Kumar has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole, and, if so, to declare those actions unauthorised and take appropriate legal action.

"Direct that respondent No.3 (CEC) shall not exercise the functions of Chief Election Commissioner of India pending final hearing of the present petition; direct that during such period, the business of the Commission be transacted by the unanimous decision of respondent Nos. 4 (Sukhbir Singh Sandhu) and 5 (Vivek Joshi); and direct that any appointment to the resulting vacancy be made upon the recommendation of a Committee, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India," the plea read.

It demanded suspension of Kumar pending the final hearing of the petition to preserve the "multi-member character of the Election Commission."

The plea came against the backdrop of an Indian Express report that claimed that two election commissioners objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders on SIR that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation

In response, the EC said differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution and all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.