‘Want to see who modified Form 6’: SC refuses to pass interim order to suspend Gyanesh

The Election Commission has said differing views are a normal part of discussions in any institution, and that all its orders are legally valid and follow the set procedures.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass an interim order seeking the suspension of chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and issued notice to the Election Commission of India, CEC and the other two election commissioners on a plea challenging ECI decisions allegedly taken unilaterally.The bench led by CJI Surya Kant directed the respondents to file their responses to the allegations. The court said it would examine whether the statutory scheme was followed and indicated that if the records showed that any decision was not taken in accordance with the law, it could injunct such a decision and hold it ultra vires.“Any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When record has produced, we would like to see who has modified. But, your prayers appear jumbled up,” the CJI noted, as quoted by LiveLaw.The court also directed the respondents to respond clearly and transparently to the allegations and issued notice in the matter.What are the petitioners seeking?Singh’s plea seeks Kumar’s suspension until the final hearing, to protect the “multi-member character of the Election Commission.” It asks that Sandhu and Joshi run the commission’s business together in the meantime, with both agreeing on decisions, and that any vacancy be filled on the recommendation of a committee that includes the Chief Justice of India.Tripathi’s plea seeks criminal proceedings against the CEC and other officials for failing in their official duty. It also seeks a declaration that all decisions, guidelines and software changes made under Kumar without the full commission’s agreement are “unconstitutional, ultra vires and void ab initio,” meaning illegal and invalid from the start.Tripathi relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which says the majority view prevails when commissioners differ. He argues that the law requires decisions to be taken together.What does the plea allege?On Form 6, the voter registration form, the plea alleges that a requirement for ancestral details and a link to the previous SIR was added through the poll panel’s software without the legal amendment the election rules require. It claims the other two commissioners objected to the change.

On Goa, it alleges the software lacked a feature to restore 97 eligible voters despite directions to verify them.On West Bengal, it claims more than 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the EC’s name against voters whose names were restored by judicial officers. It says the other two commissioners and the state’s chief electoral officer did not know about these appeals or approve them.The Election Commission has said differing views are a normal part of discussions in any institution, and that all its orders are legally valid and follow the set procedures.