If there's illegality...: SC seeks records of EC's decisions amid SIR row
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to produce records of decisions under challenge in petitions questioning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s exercise of powers, including the controversial changes to Form 6.
The top court was hearing a petition, filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh, challenging the functioning of the Election Commission under the CEC’s leadership, alleging that several guidelines and software changes were introduced without the approval of the other two Election Commissioners.
It also seeks the CEC's suspension, saying that he has acted contrary to the constitutional and statutory framework.
During the hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana said it wanted to examine whether the decisions were taken solely by Gyanesh Kumar or were approved unanimously or by a majority of the poll body.
“When the record is produced, we want to see who has modified the Form 6. If there is no consensus, the decision should be by a majority; otherwise, the decision could be set aside. You are basing your arguments solely on a newspaper report," the CJI said.
Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, responded, “There is a press release from the Election Commission itself, and they have not refuted this report.”
In response, the CJI said, “The report might be accurate or inaccurate, but we cannot pass an order based on that. We must await their response.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court did not set a specific deadline for the ECI to respond, despite advocate Vikas Singh seeking a response within a week and arguing that the court needed to intervene, saying otherwise “the country will burn."
In response, the CJI said that if the court eventually found flaws in the appointment process, it could always cancel the results.
The senior lawyer, however, argued that the court had never cancelled or rejected an election and said directions should instead be issued to ensure that decisions of the Commission were taken unanimously.- Ends
Aneesha Mathur is a Special Correspondent for India Today where she puts her LLB degree to use covering Legal issues and cases in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High court and other courts/tribunals.
Aneesha joined India Today in October 2018. After graduating from St Stephen's College and Faculty of law,Delhi University, she spent the formative years of her career in print Media.
Her interest in journalism stems from experience while interning with Legal services and Juvenile justice board as a law student, where she learnt the importance of ensuring that accurate information reaches the world, and that stories about individual experiences and statistics that show a "bigger picture" must supplement each other so other people can see what the large impact of a small thing can be. When not working or thinking about the law and it's state, Aneesha hides from reality in fantasy novels, rom-coms and food.
