Election Commission Defends Decision-Making Process in Supreme Court
The Election Commission of India clarifies its decision-making procedures amid allegations of unilateral actions by the Chief Election Commissioner.
The ECI asserts that decisions are made collectively and electronically approved in urgent situations.
Form 6 has not been amended by the ECI, as only the Central Government holds that authority.
The Supreme Court is reviewing multiple petitions challenging the ECI's processes and decisions.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has firmly rejected claims made in a petition before the Supreme Court, which alleges that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is making decisions without the consent of the other two Election Commissioners. In its affidavit, the ECI contends that the petition is based solely on a single newspaper article and lacks substantial evidence, stating that such reports do not constitute legal proof of the facts presented.
The ECI's response highlights that all three commissioners, including Kumar, have unanimously approved the affidavit. It clarifies that the decision-making process involves a sequential review by the Election Commissioners before reaching the Chief Election Commissioner. The ECI also noted that any suggestions or queries raised during this process do not equate to a formal decision as per the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
In urgent matters, the ECI stated that approvals are obtained electronically, which are later documented. The commission emphasized that actions will be taken against officials who issue directives without proper authorization. Furthermore, the ECI clarified that it has not modified Form 6, which is used for voter registration, asserting that only the Central Government has the authority to amend such forms.
The ongoing legal scrutiny stems from a petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Singh, who seeks clarification on the authority under which the Chief Election Commissioner operates. The petition raises concerns about the centralization of power within the ECI and the lack of transparency in decision-making, citing 14 objections recorded by the two Election Commissioners against actions taken without their approval.
The Supreme Court has scheduled hearings for Singh's petition along with others challenging the ECI's decisions. The ECI's affidavit states that all orders related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were made collectively. The commission also addressed procedural concerns regarding the online presentation of Form 6, acknowledging that it could be perceived as an amendment, despite asserting that no formal changes have been made. The ECI plans to continue its defense in the upcoming hearings, emphasizing the legality and integrity of its processes.
