A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking criminal investigation and prosecution of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar like an "ordinary accused". The petition argues that allegations of record manipulation and unauthorized system modifications cannot enjoy constitutional or statutory protection.
The plea, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi through advocate Chand Qureshi, asserts that "intentionally manipulating records, committing forgery, or subverting the constitutional electoral process in the course of discharging official duties can under no circumstances be treated as an integral part of those duties".
Allegations of Unilateral Action and Dissent
The petition follows investigative reporting that revealed deep internal rifts within the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI). Official records indicated that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally placed written dissents and objections on at least 14 occasions over ten months against decisions executed by the CEC.
Key issues raised in the petition include:
Unauthorised Form 6 Changes: The unilateral alteration of digital Form 6 on the ECINet portal to mandate ancestral linkages for first-time young voters without legislative amendments.
System Centralisation: Software modifications that restricted the statutory authority of local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
Disenfranchisement Claims: Glitches and omissions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise that left eligible voters unlisted.
Immunity vs. Personal Accountability
From a constitutional standpoint, the petitioner contends that the CEC possesses security of tenure under Article 324, but not absolute personal immunity from criminal prosecution. Under Article 361 of the Constitution, criminal immunity is conferred exclusively on the President and State Governors.
Furthermore, the plea states that Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 does not shield acts that constitute cognisable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Why This Matters
The Election Commission is tasked with safeguarding the democratic framework of India. Allegations that decision-making processes bypassed the multi-member consensus structure defined in Section 18 of the 2023 Act strike at the core of public confidence in elections.
The petitioner has prayed for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, alongside cybersecurity experts from IITs, to conduct an end-to-end technical and administrative audit of the digital electoral infrastructure. The apex court is expected to take up the matter for initial hearing in the coming days.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):
Q1: What is the main demand of the petition filed in the Supreme Court? A: The petition seeks a criminal investigation and regular trial proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar like an ordinary accused, along with an SIT probe into alleged unilateral changes made to electoral roll software.
Q2: Does the Chief Election Commissioner have complete immunity from arrest or trial? A: No. Under Article 361 of the Indian Constitution, absolute personal immunity from criminal proceedings during tenure is provided solely to the President and Governors. The CEC holds security of tenure regarding removal, but not absolute protection against criminal liability.
Q3: What triggered the controversy within the Election Commission? A: Investigative reports revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded written dissents on at least 14 occasions regarding administrative and digital changes made to electoral revision tools.