The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition next week that challenges how the Election Commission of India (ECI) operates under the leadership of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition raises concerns over whether the three-member poll panel can make decisions without the consent of its other members.
Legal dispute over commission voting
Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh argued that the statutory framework requires the ECI’s decisions to be taken either unanimously or by majority. He expressed doubt about the unanimity of recent decisions, claiming the current functioning of the body lacks clarity on this requirement.
The petition challenges the manner in which collective powers have been exercised by the Commission. It specifically questions whether Gyanesh Kumar can act independently on matters that are constitutionally vested in the entire panel rather than an individual.
Legal experts note that this case tests the strict separation of powers within the ECI. Unlike a standard corporate board, the Commission requires a specific consensus to function legally, and this dispute highlights the friction when that consensus is perceived as lacking.
The controversy stems from a report in The Indian Express alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected to at least 14 decisions over the past 10 months. They claimed decisions were issued without their prior knowledge or recommendation, particularly regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The ECI has refuted these claims, stating that operational queries from the commissioners were part of the draft-stage process.
Political fallout and protests
The rift has led to calls for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, with the Cockroach Janta Party announcing nationwide protests starting October 2. The group alleges that the SIR exercise excluded over 130 million names from draft electoral rolls and vows to continue the campaign until Kumar steps down.
The poll panel had also said that letters sent by Sandhu and Joshi to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation and were not related to policy or IT division matters.
