The Supreme Court (SC) said on Monday that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is supposed to abide by the law as it heard a string of petitions seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across the country.

An SC bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notices to the poll panel and the CEC, seeking responses from them over the allegations raised in the petitions.

‘They are expected to adhere to the law’

During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant referred to media reports cited before the apex court and said the reports could either be fully or partially correct. He added that the bench wanted to hear the responses of the respondents concerned before taking the matter forward.

The CJI noted, “There’s a law they are expected to follow. If we find that law was not followed, you know what can happen.”

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, contended that the statutory framework governing the Election Commission (EC) could not be disregarded. He pleaded with the Bench to clarify that the statutory scheme had to be adhered to.

Singh further argued that decisions of the EC were required to be unanimous and alleged that the CEC could not resort to taking unilateral decisions. He also questioned the legal protection from prosecution available to the CEC and Election Commissioners, arguing that such immunity was not available even to the Prime Minister (PM) or the judges attached to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner seeks immediate action against CEC

Seeking interim relief, Singh urged the top court to suspend the CEC on an immediate note and issue interim directions in the matter. He warned that failure to intervene could have serious consequences, saying, “or else the country will burn.’

The counsel also argued that protection from prosecution was available only to the President and pressed for immediate intervention from the judiciary. Additionally, while hearing another petition linked to the SIR, the top court agreed to examine the validity of the immunity shield as well as allegations that the CEC had taken the decisions unilaterally. However, the SC bench denied passing an interim order preventing the CEC from taking decisions without unanimity among the Election Commissioners.

PIL raises questions over decision-making

A resident of Patna, named Rakesh Kumar Singh, asked the SC to ascertain whether Gyanesh Kumar has individually been exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission as a whole. It further sought a declaration that, if such actions were unauthorised, appropriate legal action should follow.

The case has triggered a deep political controversy after an investigative report by ‘The Indian Express,’ which shed light on alleged differences between the poll panel over the SIR exercise. The report claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised concerns over the deletion of names from electoral rolls and objected to aspects of the decision-making process on 14 occasions in recent months.

On the other hand, the EC has shunned any suggestion of institutional discord, maintaining that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in any institution. The poll panel has asserted that all its orders over the past year were the outcome of unanimous decisions to the full Commission.