India SC issues notices over pleas seeking CEC suspension

India's Supreme Court has issued notices to the Election Commission and the federal government on petitions alleging that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took several decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without the approval of the two other election commissioners.

The court, however, declined to issue an interim order restraining Kumar from taking further decisions while the petitions are pending. The bench said it would examine the challenged decisions and could annul those found to be contrary to law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the court would examine whether the Election Commission had acted within its legal mandate.

"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.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, sought an interim order restraining Kumar from taking further decisions as CEC.

The bench questioned whether suspending the chief election commissioner could disrupt the functioning of the Election Commission.

"Who will conduct the elections?" the bench asked, while stressing that the poll panel must continue functioning in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

Singh argued that the two other election commissioners could carry out the functions and sought an order requiring the commission to take decisions unanimously or by majority.

"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," Chief Justice Surya Kant said.

The bench said it could not pass an order ex parte and would first need responses from the Election Commission and the federal government.

Singh alleged that the electoral roll had been "vitiated" by decisions taken unilaterally by the CEC.

Justice Bagchi questioned whether the court could reach such a conclusion without hearing the respondents.

"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 argued that an Election Commission press release issued after controversy over a media report amounted to an admission of the report's claims.

Chief Justice Kant said the court could not base its decision solely on newspaper reports and would have to consider the responses of the Election Commission and the federal government.

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

The petitions allege that decisions concerning the SIR were taken without the concurrence of the other two election commissioners. A report by The Indian Express said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions and orders linked to the SIR.

The Election Commission has rejected the allegations, saying differences of view and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberations and that its orders have full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.