The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the ECI and the Centre on pleas alleging that the poll body had taken several decisions without the approval of the other two election commissioners. The court said it would examine whether the decisions were taken in accordance with the law and made it clear that any decision found to be unlawful could subsequently be annulled.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, however, refused to pass an interim order restraining Gyanesh Kumar from taking decisions until the final disposal of the petitions.
The bench also indicated that it could examine the immunity granted to the CEC and election commissioners under the law, including protection that extends beyond their tenure. “We will examine all the decisions. If any decision is not in accordance with the law, we will annul it. You know the power of the court,” the bench said.
The court also questioned the statutory protection given to the CEC, observing that the immunity was something “even judges don’t have”.
On the Form 6 controversy, the bench was categorical: “Any modification to Form 6 has not been approved by us. Let’s be clear. When records are produced, we would like to see who has modified it.”
The court’s remarks came while hearing petitions challenging the functioning of the ECI and seeking action against Gyanesh Kumar over allegations that several decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken without the involvement or approval of the other two election commissioners.
The petitioners have also challenged alleged changes to Form 6 on the ECINet/ERONet portal, including additional requirements relating to ancestry and declarations concerning the previous SIR. The Supreme Court has directed that the Form 6 matter be tagged with the broader plea challenging the ECI’s decision-making process.
Gandhi had also raised the Form 6 issue in an X post on 1 October, alleging that the online form had been changed “illegally” and questioning the role of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), which provides technology services to the ECI.
“The online Form 6 was changed illegally — as the EC’s own Commissioners have recorded. Who at the ECI ordered Tata Consultancy Services to make that change?” Gandhi had said. “Who at TCS signed off on it? And were they pressured into doing it?”
The Supreme Court’s intervention has now put the focus squarely on the records behind the modification, with the bench indicating that it wants to establish who authorised the change and whether the ECI followed the statutory procedure.
With PTI inputs
About the Author
