A fresh controversy has erupted around the Election Commission of India (ECI), with a Supreme Court advocate seeking permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Advocate Brajesh Singh has written to Attorney General R Venkataramani seeking the required consent to move a contempt petition against Kumar. Singh alleges that the CEC violated Supreme Court judgments governing how the Election Commission, a three-member constitutional body, should function.
The request comes a day after reports highlighted differences between Kumar and the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, over decisions linked to electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
According to a September 23 report by The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months. The reported disagreements covered changes to voter-registration procedures, deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, modifications to Form 6 and access to the electoral-roll database.
Singh has relied on these reports while seeking the Attorney General’s consent. He alleges that decisions were taken or communications issued in the name of the full Election Commission without the knowledge or approval of the other commissioners.
The advocate has cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Seshan v Union of India, arguing that the Election Commission is meant to function as a multi-member body and that the Chief Election Commissioner is primus inter pares, or first among equals, rather than an authority above the other commissioners.
Singh has also referred to the Supreme Court’s Anoop Baranwal v Union of India judgment while raising questions about the independence and functioning of the poll panel.
However, no criminal contempt case has been filed against Kumar at this stage. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, a private individual seeking to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court requires the written consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. The current request is therefore for permission to proceed, not a judicial finding against the CEC.
Dispute over electoral rolls
The controversy centres largely on the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR of electoral rolls.
The revision exercise has involved verification and updating of voter lists across several states and Union territories. The process has become politically contentious, with opposition parties raising concerns about the deletion of eligible voters and the procedures used to verify voter eligibility.
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi had raised objections over several decisions connected to the exercise. One issue involved changes to Form 6, which is used by people seeking inclusion in electoral rolls.
The report said Joshi had questioned whether changes to the form could be made without amending the relevant rules. Other reported objections concerned electoral-roll software, database access and the addition, deletion and restoration of voter names.
The Election Commission, however, has maintained that differences of opinion and observations are part of its internal decision-making process. It has said that final decisions of the Commission, including those concerning SIR, were taken unanimously.
Supreme Court judgments at centre
The legal argument behind the contempt request rests on how the Election Commission’s constitutional structure has been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
In the T.N. Seshan case, the court dealt with the relationship between the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners after the Election Commission became a multi-member body.
The petitioner argues that the judgment requires the commission to operate institutionally rather than allowing the CEC to exercise unilateral authority.
The reference to Anoop Baranwal is linked to the constitutional importance of an independent Election Commission and its role in conducting free and fair elections.
Singh has argued that allegedly bypassing other commissioners while presenting decisions as those of the full Commission could amount to disobedience of binding Supreme Court law under Article 141 of the Constitution. These are the petitioner’s allegations and have not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Political pressure grows
The controversy has also triggered a wider political debate. Opposition leaders have criticised Kumar and demanded action over the reported differences within the poll panel and the conduct of the SIR exercise.
The issue gained further attention after the Supreme Court on September 23 referred challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. Justice Dipankar Datta, in a separate opinion, expressed concerns about the independence of the present appointment mechanism.
The 2023 law replaced the earlier selection arrangement and removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee. The constitutional challenge to that law is now set for consideration by a larger bench.
The two developments — the fresh contempt request and the Supreme Court’s move on the appointment law — have brought renewed attention to the independence, structure and decision-making process of the Election Commission.
