Concerns Rise Over Chief Election Commissioner’s Actions: Petition Filed in Supreme Court
As doubts grow regarding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) drive, a Supreme Court lawyer has taken action by filing a petition for his criminal prosecution. Additionally, another lawyer has reached out to the attorney general for approval to pursue a contempt petition against Kumar.
The petition claims that Gyanesh Kumar made “unilateral, unauthorized, and illegal decisions” while acting on behalf of the Election Commission (EC). It cites Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act of 2023, along with a ruling from 1995 by a constitutional bench in the TN Seshan case, emphasizing that EC decisions should be made collectively by a majority.
The Election Commission asserts that the decisions regarding the revision of electoral rolls were made unanimously by Kumar and his fellow election commissioners, S S Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petition, filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, also seeks to revoke unauthorized changes made to Form 6 on the EC’s online portals. It demands the immediate restoration of the original Form 6 as defined by the Registration of Electors Rules, ensuring that all eligible adults can register to vote without additional ancestry requirements.
The petition states, “Forcing young voters to provide ancestral information without proper legal authority is both unauthorized and illegal,” a view echoed by a majority within the commission itself.
It further argues that centralizing the management of electoral rolls under the IT director in Delhi undermines the role of decentralized electoral registration officers, breaching various provisions of the Representation of the People Act of 1950.
The petition identifies tampering with the electoral roll as a serious offense under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, as well as numerous regulations concerning falsification of records. It contends that the Chief Election Commissioner should not enjoy immunity for these alleged illegal acts and is subject to investigation and legal proceedings like any ordinary citizen.
In a parallel move, advocate Shiv Kumar Tripathi has written to the attorney general highlighting “constitutional misconduct” by the Chief Election Commissioner and requesting permission to file a contempt case.
Tripathi’s letter warns that the actions of the Chief Election Commissioner could undermine public trust in the integrity of elections. He stressed the importance of maintaining the independence and collective decision-making authority of the Commission to uphold the Constitution.
This unfolding situation raises critical questions about the governance of electoral processes, and it remains to be seen how it will develop in the days to come.
