The Supreme Court today adjourned the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India, granting petitioners 10 days' time to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the ECI yesterday.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the functioning of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and alleging that several decisions of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, were taken without the concurrence of the other two Election Commissioners.

During the brief hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing in the petition filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and INDIA Bloc leaders, requested the Court to pass an order to preserve the file-notings and internal communications, saying that it was crucial to decide if the decisions were unanimous or unilateral.

"This whole issue depends on the decision-making process, consultation, and whether the decision was unanimous or not unanimous. Let file notings, etc be preserved," Singhvi urged.

"We know everything, we will examine," CJI replied.

Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in the writ petition filed by TMC MP Dola Sena, submitted that the ECI's affidavit corroborated the arguments made by the petitioners. She contended that the ECI had tampered with the Form 6, and even issued a press release claiming that the Supreme Court had approved it.

Senior Advocate Dr Maninder Singh, for the ECI, refuted the submission, terming it a "rhetoric" meant for outside.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, for the lead petitioner Rakesh Singh, requested for time to file rejoinder.

Adjourning the hearing, the bench tentatively listed the matter on November 17.

In the lead case [Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Rakesh Singh v. Union of India & Ors.], the Court had issued notice on October 5, while declining to pass an ex-parte interim order seeking the suspension of Gyanesh Kumar. Recently, in its counter-affidavit, the ECI denied the allegations of unilateral decision-making, stating that all decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken unanimously by the Commission.

The Commission also stated that Form 6, used for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, was not amended. It further contended that the plea seeking to restrain CEC Gyanesh Kumar from functioning as CEC is not maintainable, relying on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of the CEC in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

To recap, the petitions were filed in the backdrop of a report by 'The Indian Express' claiming that at least 14 crucial decisions relating to the SIR exercise were taken in the name of the ECI despite objections recorded by Election Commissioners - Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

Besides Rakesh Kumar Singh, other petitioners include - Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, LoP Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders, Human Justice Organization, Priya Mishra, AIMIM chief and MP Asaduddin Owaisi, former MP Digvijay Singh, and West Bengal MP Dola Sen. The petitioners have questioned whether the Commission's functioning complied with the constitutional framework under Article 324 and the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

On October 5, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, had urged the Court to grant interim relief, arguing that the allegations raised serious concerns regarding the functioning of the poll body and the protection of voting rights. "The Court has to pass some interim orders, otherwise the country will burn," Singh had submitted.

The bench had expressed reservations about suspending the CEC without first hearing the respondents, observing that such an order could stall the functioning of the ECI. "Who will conduct the elections?" the bench had asked.

Singh had suggested that the other two Election Commissioners could discharge the Commission's functions in the interim. He also prayed for directions requiring the ECI to take decisions unanimously or, where unanimity was not possible, by majority, in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. But no interim direction was passed.

Responding to the submissions, CJI Kant had observed that the law governing the Commission's decision-making process was mandatory and that the Court would undo any action found to be in violation of the law. Justice Bagchi had also questioned whether the Court could pass an ex-parte order holding the disputed decisions to be unilateral without examining the relevant records and hearing the respondents.

The bench had ultimately issued notice to the Union, ECI, CEC Gyanesh Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg and Director General (IT) Seema Khanna.