Back
Supreme Court Petition Targets CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over Unilateral SIR Decisions and Voter Deletions
A significant legal challenge has been mounted before the , with a petition seeking criminal prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for alleged statutory violations during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Filed under , the plea also demands a probe into the reported deletion of approximately 13 crore voter names across 30 states and Union Territories.
The petition, brought by advocate , names not only the CEC but also Senior Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna as respondents. It contends that several decisions, guidelines, and software modifications were implemented without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, thereby violating the statutory framework governing the multi-member .
A Controversial Electoral Roll Revision
The SIR exercise, intended to update and cleanse electoral rolls, has become the epicentre of a bitter institutional dispute. According to media reports cited in the petition, Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi formally recorded written objections on at least 14 occasions between and . These objections related to decisions concerning voter additions, deletions, restoration of names, and changes to the voter registration process—specifically the alteration of Form 6, the statutory form for inclusion of names in electoral rolls.
The petitioner argues that the CEC, as " ," cannot override the majority view of the Commission. Under , decisions must be taken by when a difference arises. The plea asserts that Kumar acted unilaterally, bypassing this requirement and rendering such decisions unconstitutional and .
Petition Alleges Unilateral Decision-Making
The core of the petition rests on the claim that Gyanesh Kumar introduced changes to the ECINet and ERONet digital platforms without the knowledge or agreement of the other two commissioners. One key alteration involved modifying Form 6 to require applicants to declare their or their ancestors' presence in the previous SIR roll. The two commissioners reportedly objected to this, noting that such a change could not be made without amending the . Despite their objections, the modified form remained in use.
Further, the petition highlights the centralisation of electoral data. It alleges that the EC's digital systems were restructured to restrict the statutory powers of Electoral Registration Officers at the field level, concentrating control in the hands of the DG-IT. This, the petitioner claims, undermined the decentralised framework mandated by the .
Disagreements Within the
The internal discord within the has been a recurring theme in the petition. The two Election Commissioners are said to have dissented on multiple fronts, including the handling of electoral roll revisions in West Bengal. The petition alleges that over 16.10 lakh appeals were filed in the name of the before appellate tribunals in West Bengal, challenging the inclusion of voters restored by judicial officers. It claims that neither the other two commissioners nor the West Bengal chief electoral officer were aware of or authorised these appeals, raising serious questions about procedural propriety.
In Goa, the petition points to a specific instance where 97 eligible electors could not be restored despite directions for their verification, because the software lacked the facility to do so. Such examples are cited to demonstrate the alleged breakdown of statutory safeguards.
The Core Legal Challenge
The petitioner seeks a declaration that all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under CEC Gyanesh Kumar without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the are unconstitutional, , and void. It specifically invokes , which provides punishment for in connection with the preparation, revision, or correction of electoral rolls.
The petition argues that the CEC is not immune from criminal prosecution.
"Divested of any statutory or constitutional immunity, the Chief Election Commissioner remains directly accountable under the law—subject to police investigation, evidence gathering, and regular trial proceedings as an ordinary accused,"
the plea states.
Additionally, the petition challenges a order concerning the allocation of administrative responsibility for the EC's IT division, which the two commissioners allegedly objected to and sought withdrawal of.
Demand for an SIT Probe
One of the most striking demands is of an independent or SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, assisted by cybersecurity and IT experts. The proposed probe would conduct a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases to investigate the circumstances under which an estimated 13 crore names were deleted from draft electoral rolls during the SIR exercise.
The petitioner also seeks preservation of server logs, databases, communications, and metadata relating to these systems from onwards, to ensure that digital evidence is not tampered with pending investigation.
EC Defends Unanimous Decisions
The
has pushed back against the allegations, maintaining that all decisions taken during the past year, including those connected with SIR, were unanimous and taken with the approval of both Election Commissioners and the CEC. The poll body has characterised the reports of internal differences as a normal part of institutional deliberation, stating that
"differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution."
However, the petitioner contends that the formal recording of objections by two commissioners on 14 separate occasions contradicts this assertion and suggests a systematic bypass of the majority decision-making process.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court is yet to admit the petition. If it does, the case could have far-reaching implications for the functioning of the and the integrity of electoral rolls ahead of future elections. The central legal questions—whether the CEC can act unilaterally in a multi-member body, whether modifications to statutory forms require rule amendments, and whether the deletion of millions of voter names constitutes a —will likely be scrutinised closely.
Legal experts note that the petition raises fundamental issues about collective responsibility and accountability within constitutional bodies. The outcome may also influence how courts view internal dissent in statutory commissions and the extent to which individual commissioners can be held liable for decisions taken in the name of the institution.
For now, the controversy has placed the under an intense spotlight, with the judiciary poised to examine the legal architecture that governs the world's largest electorate.
