'If law wasn't followed, we can undo it': Supreme Court's big warning on SIR process amid Gyanesh Kumar row

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) seeking its response to allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar took unilateral decisions without the consensus of the other two Election Commissioners.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Patna resident Rakesh Kumar Singh following an investigative report published by The Indian Express.

Supreme Court warns of possible stay

The court, as quoted by NDTV, said, "If it is found that the decisions were taken neither unanimously nor by a majority, they could be stayed."

The bench, however, cautioned that it could not presume that all decisions were taken unilaterally.

"It cannot unilaterally conclude that all decisions were taken unilaterally," the court said.

Court seeks certified information

The Supreme Court also observed that it could not pass an order solely on the basis of a newspaper report, irrespective of its accuracy, as judicial decisions require certified information.

The court said it would examine whether the prescribed legal procedure was followed in taking the decisions.

"If we find there were instances where law wasn't followed, we can undo it," the court said.

Investigative report on SIR

The controversy follows a report by The Indian Express that detailed differences within the three-member Election Commission involving CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

According to the investigation, Sandhu and Joshi formally raised objections at least 14 times over a period of 10 months to decisions and orders concerning electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). They reportedly said some decisions had been taken without their knowledge.

The objections covered changes to Form 6, access to the electoral-roll database, deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals related to electoral rolls and aspects of the ECI's internal decision-making.

The two Election Commissioners also reportedly raised concerns over what they described as the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database.

Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) at the constituency level have statutory responsibility for preparing and maintaining electoral rolls.

According to the investigation, Joshi called for an audit to ensure that only authorised statutory officials could alter the voter database, while Sandhu recorded complaints from state-level officials that they did not have "proper and complete access" to the relevant systems.

The report also said the two Commissioners separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan over changes in the ECI's work allocation that they felt could further concentrate control over the IT systems handling electoral rolls.

Election Commission rejects claims of internal rift

The Election Commission has disputed the interpretation of the report, saying written objections, suggestions and differing views are part of its internal deliberative process.

EC sources said all decisions, including those concerning the SIR, were taken with the approval of all three Election Commissioners and were unanimous.