Petition in Bombay HC against CEC Gyanesh Kumar seeks halt to Maharashtra SIR

Amid political and legal debate over the Election Commission's functioning, some decisions and administrative processes taken under the leadership of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have been challenged before the Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court. The petition is reported to have been filed by Prathamesh Gopal Gavankar, Gaurav Suryakant Nakharekar, Adesh Shashikant Bhatkar and Smitali Nilesh Narvekar. A team of lawyers including advocate Asim Sarode is representing the petitioners.

The petition raises serious questions about the Election Commission's decision-making process. It specifically points out that two Election Commissioners objected to various decisions and processes 14 times. According to reports, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections to certain decisions and orders at least 14 times over the past 10 months. These objections reportedly relate to the addition, deletion and re-inclusion of voters' names, Form-6, and the voter list database.

The petition also questions the voter registration process, deletion of voters' names, the voter list database, the role of Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), and the functioning of the ECINet system. The petitioners claim that whether rules and legal provisions were followed in all these processes needs to be examined. However, these are so far only claims made in the petition, and the court has not yet ruled on them.

Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the Commission's functioning is to be conducted by consensus as far as possible. However, the same section also provides that if there is disagreement among the commissioners, a decision can be taken by majority opinion. The main legal question raised in the petition is therefore whether the decisions and administrative processes adopted fall within this legal framework.

The petition seeks a halt to the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in Maharashtra. It also seeks the re-inclusion of names allegedly wrongly deleted from the voter list during the SIR. The petitioners have further sought the setting up of a separate judicial committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to examine the alleged irregularities in the voter list and the process.

Meanwhile, the political controversy over the SIR and the Election Commission's internal decision-making process continues in the country. The Commission has said that the differences expressed by the two commissioners are part of institutional discussion, and that important decisions, including on the SIR, have been taken by consensus. Attention now turns to what stance the Kolhapur bench takes on the petition and what directions it issues on the demands made in it.