The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, indicated that it would examine allegations concerning the internal functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), particularly claims that important decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were taken without the agreement of all three Election Commissioners.

A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the functioning of the constitutional body under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

During the proceedings, CJI Surya Kant observed that the Court was aware of the developments surrounding the controversy and would consider the issues raised before it.

The observation came after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested the preservation of internal records and official communications relating to decisions taken by the Election Commission.

The Bench granted the petitioners ten days to respond to the Commission's counter-affidavit and tentatively scheduled the next hearing for November 17.

Singhvi Seeks Preservation Of Internal Records And File Notings

Appearing for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of the INDIA bloc, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the controversy involved fundamental questions about how the Election Commission arrived at its decisions.

According to Singhvi, determining whether the Commission acted collectively or whether certain decisions were taken without the concurrence of other members would require an examination of official records.

He urged the Court to ensure that file notings, internal correspondence and other relevant documents were preserved.

The request was aimed at establishing whether the SIR-related decisions had been approved unanimously or whether differences of opinion existed among the Commissioners.

Responding to the submission, CJI Surya Kant remarked:

"We know everything, we will examine."

The Chief Justice's observation indicated that the Court had taken note of the controversy. However, the Bench did not issue any specific direction concerning the preservation of records during Tuesday's proceedings.

Allegations Of Differences Within Election Commission

The petitions have raised questions about the decision-making process adopted by the Election Commission during the electoral roll revision exercise.

The controversy gained further attention following a report published by The Indian Express, which alleged that at least 14 significant decisions concerning the SIR exercise were taken despite objections from Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.

The petitioners have relied on these allegations to question whether decisions issued in the name of the Election Commission reflected the collective opinion of the constitutional body.

They have also sought judicial examination of whether the Commission followed the applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.

The Election Commission has categorically rejected allegations that its decisions were taken unilaterally.

Menaka Guruswamy Raises Questions Over Form 6

Another significant issue emerged when Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Dola Sen, questioned the Election Commission's handling of Form 6.

Form 6 is used by eligible individuals seeking inclusion of their names in electoral rolls.

Guruswamy alleged that the Commission had made changes to the form and subsequently issued a public statement suggesting that the Supreme Court had approved it.

She argued that the Commission's own counter-affidavit lent support to the concerns raised by the petitioners.

The submission was strongly contested by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Election Commission.

Singh dismissed the allegations as rhetoric directed at an audience beyond the courtroom.

The Election Commission has maintained that Form 6 was not amended, rejecting the petitioners' allegations.

Election Commission Denies Unilateral Decisions

In its counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on Monday, October 26, the Election Commission disputed allegations concerning the conduct of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The Commission asserted that decisions relating to the Special Intensive Revision exercise were taken unanimously.

It rejected suggestions that the Chief Election Commissioner had acted independently of the other Commissioners while exercising the constitutional body's powers.

The affidavit also denied claims concerning changes to Form 6.

The Commission's position directly contradicts the petitioners' allegations, placing the legality and transparency of the decision-making process at the centre of the dispute.

ECI Opposes Plea To Restrain Gyanesh Kumar From Functioning As CEC

The proceedings also involve a request seeking to prevent Gyanesh Kumar from continuing to discharge his responsibilities as Chief Election Commissioner.

The Election Commission has opposed this relief, questioning its maintainability in light of the constitutional protections governing the office.

In its response, the Commission relied on Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which provides that the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.

The provision is intended to protect the independence of the constitutional office from arbitrary removal.

The petitioners, however, have questioned whether the Commission's functioning and decision-making procedures comply with Article 324 and the relevant statutory framework.

The legal dispute therefore extends beyond the SIR exercise to broader questions concerning institutional accountability, collective decision-making and the constitutional independence of the Election Commission.

No Interim Relief, Next Hearing On November 17

Despite the arguments advanced by the petitioners, the Supreme Court did not grant any interim relief or issue directions against the Election Commission during Tuesday's hearing.

Instead, the Bench allowed the petitioners ten days to file their rejoinder to the Commission's affidavit.

The matter has been tentatively listed for further consideration on November 17.

The next hearing is expected to focus on the competing claims concerning the Commission's internal decision-making procedures, the alleged objections of individual Election Commissioners and the legal framework governing the SIR exercise.

For now, the Election Commission's denial of wrongdoing remains on record, while the petitioners' allegations await judicial examination.

The Supreme Court's eventual consideration of these questions could have wider implications for transparency and accountability in the functioning of India's constitutional election authority.