Advocate Brajesh Singh, in a letter addressed to Attorney General R Venkataramani on September 24, invoked Section 15(1)(b) read with Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Rule 3 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
The request follows a September 23 report by The Indian Express, which stated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over the preceding 10 months to decisions taken by the poll panel without their knowledge or approval. The objections reportedly related, among other matters, to changes in Form 6, the addition and deletion of names from electoral rolls, and the centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.
Singh contends that Supreme Court judgments require the Election Commission to function as a multi-member constitutional body and that the CEC is primus inter pares, or first among equals, rather than an absolute authority.
The Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan had held that the CEC could not be projected as being “mightier than the institution” and that decisions of a multi-member Election Commission were decisions of the Commission and not of its Chairman.
Singh has also relied upon the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, which dealt with the constitutional framework concerning the Election Commission and emphasised the importance of an independent Election Commission for ensuring free and fair elections. The judgment described the ECI as an institution entrusted with the task of conducting elections in a fair, transparent and impartial manner. The Supreme Court’s records identify Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India as a 2023 Constitution Bench judgment concerning the Election Commission.
The contempt request alleges that bypassing the other Election Commissioners while issuing decisions or communications in the name of the “Full Commission” would amount to wilful defiance of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Another ground cited by Singh is that alleged changes to the electoral database and voter rolls, without the involvement or approval of the other Election Commissioners, could interfere with ongoing electoral processes and judicial scrutiny concerning electoral transparency.
The Indian Express investigation cited in the request reported that Sandhu and Joshi had raised concerns over the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database and questioned restrictions on the access of statutory electoral authorities to the system. The report also stated that the two Commissioners had objected to a change in Form 6, the statutory form used for voter registration, after questions relating to the previous Special Intensive Revision were incorporated into the process.
The ECI, however, has denied the suggestion of a rift in The Indian Express report, claiming that the issues raised were operational queries, inputs and suggestions at the draft stage and that decisions taken by the Commission were unanimous. The Commission did not dispute the existence, dates or contents of the 14 notes but described them as “suggestions” and maintained that decisions taken over the past year were unanimous.
Singh said the disclosures in The Indian Express investigation indicated a “documented subversion” of the constitutional machinery and argued that decisions allegedly taken by only one or two members of the Commission could not be treated as merely internal administrative matters.
Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act allows any person to file a motion or petition for criminal contempt in the Supreme Court or a High Court, provided they have obtained the written consent of the Advocate-General, or the Attorney-General for the Supreme Court.
If consent is granted, contempt proceedings may subsequently be instituted before the Supreme Court against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The development comes a day after, on September 23, the Supreme Court referred the petitions challenging the 2023 law governing the appointment process for the Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. Justice Dipankar Datta, in his separate opinion, expressed prima facie doubts regarding the independence of the present selection process. The Supreme Court’s proceedings and reports on the case confirm that the challenge to the 2023 appointment law was referred for consideration by a larger bench following divergent views.
The request for criminal contempt proceedings therefore places the functioning of the multi-member Election Commission, the role of the CEC and the handling of electoral-roll decisions at the centre of a fresh legal challenge.
About The Author
Comment List