A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court on Monday seeks to overturn fourteen administrative actions taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petition, submitted through Advocate Asim Sarode before the Kolhapur Bench, alleges that the orders were issued despite recorded objections from the other two Election Commissioners, Dr. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr. Vivek Joshi.
Allegations and Scope of the Challenge
The petitioners contend that the manner in which decisions relating to electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral‑roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers were taken raises serious questions of statutory compliance and constitutional governance. According to a recent report by The Indian Express, the objections lodged by Sandhu and Joshi concerned a range of issues, including modifications to Form 6 used for new voter registration, the deletion and subsequent restoration of voter names, appeals against orders that restored voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, and the overall management and access to the electoral‑roll database.
Sandhu and Joshi are reported to have described certain actions as “unauthorised and illegal,” particularly pointing to changes in Form 6 and a gradual centralisation of access to the electoral‑roll database. The two commissioners also approached the Cabinet Secretary over alterations in the allocation of work related to the IT infrastructure that handles electoral rolls, asserting that those changes were made without their knowledge.
Relief Sought in the Primary Petition
The writ petition asks the court to quash the fourteen impugned actions and to restore the names of voters who had been deleted from the rolls. In addition, the petitioners request that the Special Intensive Revision process in Maharashtra be halted, that the upcoming State Assembly elections be postponed until electoral rolls that comply with legal requirements are prepared and approved, and that an independent Judicial Committee be constituted to examine the alleged irregularities.
According to the petition, the alleged actions have led to a “systematic erosion of constitutional norms” governing the management of electoral rolls. The petitioners argue that such erosion threatens the right to equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution and the constitutional guarantee of adult suffrage under Article 326. They maintain that the Election Commission, while performing its electoral‑roll related functions, must adopt a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach to ensure democratic governance.
Separate Petition Challenging the SIR Process in Maharashtra
In a related filing, another writ petition was lodged before the Principal Seat of the Bombay High Court by Advocate Hitendra Gandhi on behalf of two Mumbai businessmen. This petition does not seek to stop the Special Intensive Revision exercise itself; instead, it asks for disclosure of the order authorising the SIR in Maharashtra, the reasons recorded for its implementation, and transparency regarding the methodology and legal basis of the exercise.
The petition states that the applicants do not wish to disturb the SIR programme, but they emphasise that the Election Commission may conduct a limited electoral assessment and cannot conclusively determine citizenship. Where doubts remain, the petition argues, the matter should be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and any electoral consequences must follow that authority’s decision.
Additional relief sought includes safeguards against wrongful exclusion of eligible voters and the restoration of deleted voter names. The petition alleges that, although the Election Commission’s instructions for Maharashtra do not permit collection of supporting documents during enumeration, Booth Level Officers have allegedly been asking citizens to provide such documents while receiving enumeration forms.
Potential Impact and Upcoming Court Dates
Both writ petitions are slated to be mentioned before their respective benches on Monday, 28 September. If the Bombay High Court were to grant the relief sought in the primary petition, it could lead to a suspension of the SIR process in Maharashtra, a postponement of the state’s assembly elections, and a judicial review of the fourteen orders issued by the Chief Election Commissioner.
Such a development would also raise broader questions about the internal decision‑making mechanisms of the Election Commission of India, particularly the extent to which the Chief Election Commissioner can act unilaterally when other commissioners have formally recorded objections. The petitions underscore concerns that the collective functioning of the commission may be compromised, potentially affecting the integrity of voter‑registration processes nationwide.
For the petitioners, the core argument rests on the premise that any unilateral action that bypasses the statutory requirement for consensus among the three Election Commissioners undermines constitutional safeguards. They assert that the alleged “unauthorised and illegal” changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of database access not only contravene internal protocols but also risk disenfranchising eligible voters.
Legal experts observing the case note that the High Court’s decision could set a precedent for how internal disagreements within the Election Commission are adjudicated. A ruling that upholds the petitioners’ claims might compel the commission to revisit its internal governance structures, ensuring that future decisions on electoral rolls and voter registration are taken with full concurrence of all commissioners.
Conversely, a dismissal of the petitions could reinforce the Chief Election Commissioner’s authority to implement reforms deemed necessary for electoral administration, even in the face of dissent from fellow commissioners. The outcome will likely influence not only the immediate electoral timetable in Maharashtra but also the broader discourse on electoral reforms and the balance of power within India’s election‑management body.
Both petitions emphasize the fundamental importance of maintaining transparent, constitutionally compliant processes for managing electoral rolls—a cornerstone of India’s democratic system. As the High Court prepares to hear arguments, the legal community and political observers will be watching closely for indications of how the judiciary may shape the future conduct of the Election Commission.
Be First to Comment