New Delhi: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has betrayed the Constitution in letter and spirit at the behest of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, the Congress alleged on Monday after the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre seeking responses on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel took decisions.
The opposition party also said the Supreme Court has a remarkable opportunity to restore public confidence in the Election Commission following “damning revelations” regarding its functioning.
The opposition party’s assertion came after the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission and the Centre seeking responses in a week on a plea challenging the manner in which the poll panel led by the CEC took decisions allegedly without the approval of two Election Commissioners.
Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said the Supreme Court heard a petition seeking, among other things, the suspension of the CEC.
“Based on the recent damning revelations regarding (1) the ad-hoc, illegal and slip-shod manner in which the SIR was taking place, (2) criticism from both sitting and retired Judges of the Supreme Court, (3) the vast and indiscriminate (and many obviously incorrect) deletions without adequate due process, the Supreme Court has a remarkable opportunity to restore public confidence in an institution vital to the integrity of our republic,” Ramesh said on X.
As of now, the Supreme Court has chosen to seek a reply and it has chosen not to pass any interim order though, Ramesh noted.
The Supreme Court has, in the past, trusted the ECI and the CECs to give a fair account of their running of the body, he said.
“The Supreme Court would do well to note that that trust was based on decades of propriety and competent conduct starting with the late great Sukumar Sen, the first CEC who set the bar for how elections are to be conducted. None of that goodwill can be claimed by Gyanesh Kumar,” Ramesh said.
This “malicious” Form 6 modification, which was originally implied to have the Supreme Court’s approval, is one such example of his underhanded and simply indefensible conduct, he said.
“In reality, the CEC has not only lied but also violated the law and betrayed the Constitution in letter and spirit at the behest of the PM and the HM,” Ramesh alleged.
In another post, Ramesh said, “Obviously and very clearly the CEC lied. Form 6 was deliberately modified by the CEC himself to delete Gen Z voters of whom the PM is simply terrified.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of the submissions of senior advocate Vikas Singh and issued the notice.
The bench said the decisions of the Election Commission have to be either unanimous or by majority and that it presumed that this is how all decisions were taken.
The PIL, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, urged the top court to determine whether the CEC has been individually exercising powers that legally belong to the Election Commission (EC) 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 stated.
The Indian Express had reported on September 25 that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the last 10 months to decisions and orders on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
Under fire over the red flags raised by two of its commissioners, the EC asserted that differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberations in any institution and that all its orders carried full legal sanction and followed established statutory procedures.
