Click the Play button to listen to article

A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court challenges 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar despite recorded objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, raising questions over the collective functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The petition, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur Bench, alleges that the manner in which decisions concerning electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers were taken raises serious issues of statutory compliance and constitutional governance.

The plea has   sought quashing of 14 administrative orders and actions of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar issued over the past ten months, which, according to a recent report by The Indian Express, were the subject of objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi. The reported objections concerned matters including changes to Form 6 for new voter registration, deletion and restoration of voter names, appeals against orders restoring voters during the SIR process, and the management and access of the electoral-roll database.

The report further stated that Sandhu and Joshi had objected to certain decisions being taken without their knowledge or approval, including what they described as "unauthorised and illegal" changes to Form 6 and the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database. The two Commissioners also reportedly approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in work allocation concerning the IT infrastructure handling electoral rolls, alleging that the changes had been made without their knowledge.

"The instant PIL challenges the manner in which decisions concerning the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of elections in the country have allegedly been prepared and implemented by the ECI, despite recorded objections by Sandhu and Joshi, particularly concerning voter registration, electoral-roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers," the plea states.

The petitioners have sought quashing of the 14 impugned actions, besides seeking restoration of deleted voter names.

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the systematic erosion of constitutional norms governing the management of electoral rolls, which directly affects their fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 14 and their constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326. The Petitioners seek quashing of the 14 impugned actions, halting of the SIR process in Maharashtra, restoration of deleted voter names, postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly Elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved, and constitution of an independent Judicial Committee to examine the alleged irregularities

They have also sought postponement of the forthcoming State Assembly Elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved, as well as constitution of an independent Judicial Committee to examine the alleged irregularities.

The plea contends that the alleged actions have resulted in a "systematic erosion of constitutional norms" governing the management of electoral rolls, affecting the right to equal treatment under Article 14 and the constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326.

According to the petition, the ECI, while undertaking its electoral-roll related functions, is required to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach to ensure that the country is governed in a democratic manner.

Separate plea challenges SIR in Maharashtra

Separately, another writ petition filed before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi challenges the constitutional validity and implementation of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Maharashtra.

The petition, filed on behalf of two businessmen from Mumbai, does not seek to stop the SIR exercise. Instead, it seeks disclosure or production of the order and recorded reasons under which the SIR is being undertaken in Maharashtra, along with transparency regarding its methodology and legal basis.

"The petitioners do not seek to stop the SIR or to disturb this programme. The ECI may make a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship. Where the doubt remains, the matter must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the electoral consequence must abide by its decision," the petition states.

The petition also seeks safeguards against wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and restoration of deleted voter names.

It alleges that although the ECI's Maharashtra instructions do not permit collection of documents during enumeration, Booth Level Officers have allegedly been asking citizens to furnish "supporting documents" while receiving Enumeration Forms.

This petition concerns the lawful implementation in Maharashtra of the SIR. The petitioners do not seek to stop the SIR or to disturb this programme. The ECI may make a limited electoral assessment but cannot conclusively determine citizenship. Where the doubt remains, the matter must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the electoral consequence must abide by its decision. The limited relief sought is disclosure or production of the order and recorded reasons under which the SIR is being undertaken in Maharashtra, along with transparency regarding its methodology and legal basis with safeguards against wrongful exclusion of eligible voters- Gandhi's petition

The plea therefore seeks transparency regarding the methodology and legal basis of the SIR and safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not wrongly excluded.

Both petitions are likely to be mentioned before the respective benches on Monday, September 28.

Case Title: Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar vs Election Commission of India

Tags: