Back
Contempt Proceedings Sought Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over TN Seshan Ruling
A advocate has formally requested the Attorney General of India’s consent to initiate proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging of the apex court’s judgments governing the Election Commission’s functioning. The request, filed by advocate on , invokes , and relies on a news report that detailed internal objections raised by the other two Election Commissioners over the past ten months.
At this stage, no contempt case has been filed. The Attorney General’s written consent is a mandatory precondition under the law before any person can move the for . The move comes amid heightened scrutiny of the Election Commission’s independence, following a split verdict by the on the challenge to the 2023 law governing appointment of Election Commissioners.
Consent Required Before Contempt Can Proceed
Under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, a private individual may initiate proceedings in the only with the written consent of the Attorney General for India. This provision serves as a filter to prevent frivolous or motivated contempt actions. The advocate’s letter is therefore a request for such consent, and not yet a formal petition before the court.
The basis of the request is a report by The Indian Express , which claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded formal objections on at least 14 occasions over the preceding ten months. According to the report, the objections pertained to decisions taken without the knowledge or approval of the full three-member Commission, including changes to Form 6 (the statutory voter registration form), addition and deletion of names from electoral rolls, and centralisation of access to the electoral roll database.
The advocate’s letter describes these actions as “unauthorised” and “illegal,” and alleges that they demonstrate a departure from the constitutionally mandated functioning of the Election Commission as a multi-member body.
Internal Dissent Over Electoral Roll Changes
The internal dissent, as reported, centres on what the two Election Commissioners described as “gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database and restrictions on access for statutory electoral authorities. They also objected to modifications in the Special Intensive Revision process for voter lists, particularly changes to Form 6 that incorporated questions from a previous revision cycle.
According to the advocate’s submission, the Commissioners flagged “sweeping alterations to voter registration software, changes to Form 6, and the deletion/restoration of voter names under the Special Intensive Revision process as being ‘unauthorised, illegal’ and executed entirely without their knowledge or the approval of the full Commission.” The letter contends that such unilateral actions by the CEC amount to a “documented subversion” of the constitutional machinery and cannot be dismissed as internal administrative matters.
Precedents on Election Commission’s Functioning
The principal legal ground cited is the ’s judgment in , which established that the Chief Election Commissioner is —first among equals—and not an absolute authority. The Court in that case held that the CEC could not be projected as “mightier than the institution,” and that decisions of a multi-member Election Commission are decisions of the Commission, not of its Chairman.
The advocate also relies on the 2023 judgment in , which emphasised the importance of an independent Election Commission for free and fair elections. The letter argues that issuing decisions or communications in the name of the “Full Commission” while bypassing the other Commissioners constitutes of the law declared by the under .
Additionally, the request raises concerns that changes to the electoral database and voter rolls without the involvement of all Commissioners could interfere with ongoing electoral processes and judicial scrutiny concerning electoral transparency.
Election Commission Rejects Allegations
The has denied the suggestion of any rift within the poll panel. In response to the news report, the ECI stated that the matters raised by the two Commissioners were routine operational queries, inputs, and suggestions at the draft stage. It maintained that all decisions taken by the Commission were unanimous.
The advocate, however, contends that the documented objections go beyond mere administrative queries and indicate a systemic deviation from constitutional safeguards. He argues that treating such objections as internal matters would undermine the institutional character of the Election Commission.
Broader Context of EC Independence
The contempt request comes at a time when the independence of the Election Commission is under intense judicial scrutiny. On , the referred petitions challenging the 2023 law on the appointment of Election Commissioners to a larger bench. The law, enacted in , excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, which now comprises the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Justice Dipankar Datta, in a separate opinion, expressed doubts about the independence of the selection process.
While the contempt request is legally distinct from the appointment challenge, it feeds into the larger debate about how the Election Commission is constituted and how it functions. The advocate’s letter explicitly links the alleged unilateral actions of the CEC to a broader erosion of institutional consensus.
What Happens Next
The next step rests with Attorney General . If he grants consent, the advocate may file a petition before the , which would then decide whether to issue notice to the CEC. If consent is refused, the proposed contempt action cannot proceed through this route.
It bears emphasis that the allegations are untested. The CEC has not been called upon to respond in any proceeding, and the Election Commission has disputed the narrative of internal conflict. The advocate’s request is based on a media report whose accuracy the ECI has challenged. No court is currently seized of the matter.
Nevertheless, the development is significant because it seeks to translate reported internal disagreements into a question of compliance with binding precedents. Legal experts note that contempt proceedings are a serious remedy, reserved for cases of of court orders. Whether the facts alleged meet that threshold will be examined only if consent is granted and a case is filed.
The coming days will reveal whether the Attorney General considers the request worthy of his consent, and whether the will ultimately be called upon to adjudicate on the contours of the CEC’s authority within the multi-member Election Commission.
