A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court has challenged 14 administrative actions taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that these decisions were made despite recorded objections from fellow Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, raising questions over the collective functioning of the Election Commission of India.
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 concerns around statutory compliance and constitutional governance. The plea seeks quashing of 14 orders and actions issued over the past ten months, which, according to an earlier report, were subject to recorded objections from Sandhu and Joshi concerning matters including changes to Form 6 for new voter registration, the deletion and restoration of voter names, and access to the electoral roll database.
According to the earlier report, Sandhu and Joshi had objected to certain decisions being taken without their knowledge or approval, including changes to Form 6 that they described as unauthorised, and the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral roll database. The two commissioners reportedly also approached the Cabinet Secretary over changes in work allocation concerning IT infrastructure handling electoral rolls.
The petitioners argue that the alleged actions have led to a systematic erosion of constitutional norms governing the management of electoral rolls, affecting their right to equal treatment under Article 14 and their right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326. Besides seeking quashing of the 14 actions, the plea seeks a halt to the SIR process in Maharashtra, restoration of deleted voter names, postponement of the upcoming state assembly elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared, and the constitution of an independent judicial committee to examine the alleged irregularities.
Separately, another petition filed before the Bombay High Court’s principal seat through Advocate Hitendra Gandhi challenges the implementation of the SIR exercise in Maharashtra. Filed on behalf of two Mumbai-based businessmen, the petition does not seek to halt the SIR process but instead seeks disclosure of the order and recorded reasons under which the exercise is being conducted, along with greater transparency around its methodology and legal basis. The petition also raises concerns that Booth Level Officers have allegedly been asking citizens for supporting documents during enumeration, despite this not being permitted under the state’s SIR instructions, and seeks safeguards against the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters.
Both petitions are expected to be mentioned before their respective benches on Monday, September 28.
(Source: LiveLaw)
