The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing of the pleas against CEC Gyanesh Kumar by 10 days. The period has been given to petitioners, including Rahul Gandhi, to file responses to the ECI affidavit submitted on Monday. A day before the hearing, the ECI, Mr Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners filed a joint affidavit highlighting that any attempt to restrain the functioning of the body would be contrary to the law. In the nearly 250-page document filed in the top court, they said a CEC cannot be removed from office except in the manner and on grounds identical to ousting a Supreme Court judge.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the CEC and the allegations that several election decisions on the ECI, including those concerning the SIR were taken without concurrence of the other two election commissioners.
Appearing for the leader of the opposition, Rahul Gandhi, and INDIA bloc leaders, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested the court to pass an order to preserve the final noting’s and internal communications saying that it was crucial to decide if the decisions were unanimous or unilateral.
“This whole issue depends on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decision was unanimous or not unanimous. Let file notings, etc be preserved,” Singhvi urged.
Subsequently, senior advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the writ petition filed by TMC MP Dola Sen, submitted that the ECI’s affidavit corroborated the arguments made by the petitioner. She contended that the ECI had tampered with Form 6 and even issued a press release claiming that the Supreme Court approved it. In response to the petition, senior advocate Dr Maninder Singh, on behalf of the ECI, refuted the submissions, terming them ‘rhetoric’.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, for the lead petitioner, Rakesh Singh, requested time to file a rejoinder. Earlier, in the lead case the court had issued a notice on October 5 while declining to pass any ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar. In its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied the allegations of unilateral decision-making, stating that all decisions concerning the SIR exercises were taken unanimously by the Commission. It also stated that Form 6 used for the inclusion of the names in the electoral rolls was not amended. It contended that the plea seeking to restrain the ECI from functioning as the chief is not maintainable, highlighting Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides the removal of the CEC in the same manner and on the same grounds as that of a judge of the Supreme Court.
Besides Rakesh Kumar Singh, other petitioners include – Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, LoP Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra, AIMIM chief and MP Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh, and West Bengal MP Dola Sen. The petitioners have questioned whether the Commission’s functioning complied with the constitutional framework under Article 324 and the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.