Petition seeks contempt action against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, alleges violation of SC orders
Petitioner Brajesh Singh, an advocate, alleges wilful disobedience of SC judgements which mandate the EC to work as a multi-member constitutional body
A Supreme Court advocate on Thursday (September 24) sought the consent of the Attorney General of India to initiate criminal contempt action against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar for alleged wilful disobedience of Supreme Court judgments on functioning of the Election Commission (EC).
The request comes in response to a report by the Indian Express which claimed that the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had raised objections to decisions about the conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls at least 14 times in 10 months that were taken without their knowledge or approval. The expose has sparked a political slugfest, amplifying calls for the impeachment of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
‘SC order says CEC not absolute authority’
According to Live Law, Advocate Brajesh Singh, in a letter addressed to Attorney General R Venkataramani, has invoked Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
Pointing to the “unauthorised” and “illegal” decisions flagged by the Election Commissioners, Singh in his letter alleged that these actions by the CEC violated the constitutionally mandated functioning of the three-member commission.
Also read: EC dissent row: How Bengal’s SIR concerns went unheeded
“The Commissioners flagged numerous policy actions, including sweeping alterations to voter registration software, changes to Form 6, and the deletion/restoration of voter names under the Special Intensive Revision process as being ‘unauthorised, illegal’ and executed entirely without their knowledge or the approval of the full Commission,” The Hindu quoted Singh as saying in the letter.
Singh specifically cites the Supreme Court judgment in TN Seshan v. Union of India to make his case, demanding contempt proceedings against the CEC.
Singh says that the Supreme Court judgment mandates the EC to work as a multi-member constitutional body while clarifying that the CEC is primus inter pares, or the first among equals, instead of an absolute authority.
Concerns over electoral transparency
While delivering its judgment in the case, the top court had ruled that the CEC could not be projected as being “mightier than the institution” and that the decisions of a multi-member EC were decisions of the commission and not of its chairman, Singh said in his petition, as quoted by LiveLaw.
The letter alleged that taking decisions or issuing communications in the name of the “full commission” while bypassing the other Election Commissioners amounts to wilful defiance of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Also read: EC denies SIR dissent report; Oppn calls for CEC’s removal, arrest, fresh polls
Singh, in his contempt request, also raised concerns that changing the electoral database and voter rolls without the involvement or approval of the Election Commissioners could interfere with ongoing electoral processes and judicial scrutiny concerning electoral transparency.