A PIL against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has been filed at the Supreme Court, challenging the commission’s guidelines and software, which has allegedly been made by him without the consent of the two Election Commissioners, saying such actions violate the statutory requirement of collective decision-making.
The plea, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate Chand Qureshi, seeks a direction declaring such decisions unconstitutional, beyond the powers of the CEC and void if they are taken without the full consent of the concurrent Election Commission panel. Besides challenging these decisions as illegally taken without the required concurrence, the petitioner has also sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the Chief and other officials under provisions related to dereliction of official duty.
“Divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity, the Chief Election Commissioner remains directly accountable under the law — subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an ordinary accused,” the plea read.
Stating that the linking of the ancestral details with the previous SIR was introduced through the election panel’s software without any statutory amendment required to the electoral rules, the plea said, “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the Election Commissioners as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio.”
It majorly points out the alteration of Form 6, used by people seeking registration as voters. The plea was filed days after the report revealed that the deputy Election Commissioners Sukbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had repeatedly submitted objections to several decisions allegedly taken in the name of the three-member Election Commission.
The plea relied on the provisions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, particularly Section 18, which provides for decision-making by the EC. It says that where there is a difference of opinion, only the opinion of the majority prevails. The plea alleged that several decisions connected with the SIR of electoral rolls were taken or implemented despite the objections of the Chief Commissioner.