CJI Surya Kant says the court will examine the allegations; petitioners seek preservation of internal records over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would examine allegations concerning the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including claims of irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
“We know everything, we will examine,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed during a hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the poll body’s decision-making process.
The petitions were filed by political leaders, including Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc representatives, who have raised concerns about the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the conduct of the electoral roll revision exercise.
The three-judge bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, granted the petitioners 10 days to file their rejoinder to the counter-affidavit submitted by the Election Commission on Monday. The matter was tentatively listed for further hearing on November 17.
Petitioners Seek Preservation of Internal Records
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi and other petitioners, urged the court to direct the preservation of internal file notings and communications within the Election Commission.
Singhvi argued that the central issue was whether decisions concerning the SIR exercise had been taken after consultation among the commissioners or without unanimous agreement.
“This whole issue depends on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decision was unanimous or not unanimous. Let file notings, etc be preserved,” Singhvi told the bench.
The petitioners contend that internal records could help establish how key decisions were reached and whether objections raised by individual commissioners were adequately considered.
Allegations of Unilateral Decision-Making
The petitions have emerged amid a report by The Indian Express, which claimed that at least 14 important decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The petitioners have questioned whether the Commission’s decisions complied with the constitutional and statutory framework governing its functioning.
However, the Election Commission has rejected allegations of unilateral decision-making, maintaining in its counter-affidavit that decisions relating to the revision exercise were taken unanimously.
Dispute Over Form 6
During the hearing, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, argued that the Election Commission’s counter-affidavit supported the petitioners’ concerns.
She alleged that the Commission had tampered with Form 6, which is used to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, and had issued a press release suggesting that the Supreme Court had approved the form.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing the Election Commission, rejected the submission, describing it as rhetoric intended for an audience outside the courtroom.
The Commission has denied that Form 6 was amended and maintained that its actions were lawful.
Plea Against Chief Election Commissioner
The Election Commission has also opposed a request seeking to restrain Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as Chief Election Commissioner, arguing that the plea is not maintainable under Article 324(5) of the Constitution.
The provision states that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.
The petitioners, meanwhile, have questioned whether the Commission’s functioning and decision-making process comply with Article 324 and the relevant statutory requirements.
No Interim Order Passed
The Supreme Court did not issue any interim directions during Tuesday’s hearing. Instead, it granted the petitioners time to respond to the Election Commission’s counter-affidavit and listed the matter for further consideration on November 17.
The proceedings are expected to examine the competing claims concerning the Commission’s internal decision-making, the conduct of the SIR exercise and the legal framework governing the electoral body.
The allegations remain contested, and the court has yet to deliver a final ruling on the issues raised in the petitions.