New Delhi, Oct. 5: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Central government, the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on a public interest litigation seeking action over allegations that Gyanesh Kumar took decisions unilaterally which were projected as decisions of the three-member Commission in matters relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, however, declined to grant the interim relief sought by senior advocate Vikas Singh, who pressed for suspension of the CEC or, alternatively, a direction that all future decisions be taken unanimously by the three-member Commission comprising the CEC and the two Election Commissioners. The bench said it could not act merely on the basis of a newspaper report without first obtaining an authoritative response.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh appeared for PIL petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh.
The court also issued notice to the Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (Information Technology) Seema Khanna.
The bench said the central issue concerned interpretation of Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, and whether its mandate had been adhered to in the functioning of the Commission. Section 18 provides that the ECI may regulate its business and allocation of work by unanimous decision and that, as far as possible, its business should be transacted unanimously. Where the Commissioners differ, the majority view prevails.
Singh urged the court to restore, as an interim measure, the position laid down by a Constitution Bench judgment on March 2, 2023, under which appointments of the CEC and Election Commissioners were to be made on the recommendation of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. He submitted that the allegations raised serious concerns touching the credibility of the electoral process.
Justice Bagchi said it could not be assumed at this stage that all the impugned decisions had been taken unilaterally, as the court first needed authentic material before reaching any conclusion.
Singh also drew attention to Section 16 of the 2023 Act, which protects a person who “is or was” the CEC or an Election Commissioner from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done or words spoken in the discharge, or purported discharge, of official duties.
Explaining the significance of the words “is or was”, Singh submitted that the protection extends not only while a person holds office but also after he has demitted office in respect of official acts performed during his tenure. He contended that such continuing protection was unusually broad for a constitutional functionary.
Justice Bagchi remarked that even judges did not enjoy such protection. Singh clarified that he was not, at this stage, challenging the immunity provision itself.
The matter is tentatively expected to be taken up later this month – October 26, 2026.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
