The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday (September 28) refused to grant an urgent hearing to a writ petition challenging the 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, allegedly despite objections by the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi.

The petition, filed through Advocate Asim Sarode, 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 raise serious issues of statutory compliance and constitutional governance.

The petition was mentioned before a division bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote, which refused to grant immediate urgent hearing citing the burden of its roster. 

The plea 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 claimed to have been 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 thus sought 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.

The matter will likely be heard on October 22.