Contempt Petition Seeks Action Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over Alleged Supreme Court Order Violations

Supreme Court advocate Brajesh Singh requested consent from Attorney General for India R Venkataramani to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on September 24.

The petition alleges wilful disobedience of established Supreme Court judgments governing the constitutional functioning of the Election Commission of India.

Contempt Plea Cites Internal Commission Dissent

Advocate Brajesh Singh invoked Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking official consent to move the apex court against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The request cites investigative reports revealing that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded formal objections on at least 14 occasions over ten months.

The dissenting commissioners described multiple operational decisions as unauthorised and illegal, pointing to actions taken without the knowledge or explicit approval of the full three-member commission.

These disputed actions involved significant modifications to statutory voter registration forms, additions and deletions within electoral rolls, and the centralisation of the electoral-roll database. The internal dissent highlighted growing concerns regarding central control over local statutory electoral authorities.

Landmark Supreme Court Precedents Cited

The petition argues that the Chief Election Commissioner violated constitutional mandates defined in the landmark T.N. Seshan v. Union of India case. The Supreme Court established in that judgment that the Chief Election Commissioner functions as primus inter pares—first among equals—rather than an absolute decision-making authority over the commission.

The contempt request also references the 2023 Anoop Baranwal ruling, which mandated an independent and transparent framework to protect election administration from unilateral executive decisions.

The petition asserts that issuing instructions or administrative changes under the banner of the full commission while bypassing sitting commissioners constitutes wilful defiance of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Election Commission Defends Decision-Making Process

The Election Commission of India rejected assertions of internal division within the poll panel. The commission clarified that communications raised by the commissioners represented routine operational inputs, draft-stage suggestions, and standard administrative queries.

Official statements from the poll body maintain that final decisions taken by the constitutional institution remain entirely unanimous.

Advocate Singh maintained in his submission that documenting unapproved structural changes to voter databases indicates systemic deviation from constitutional safeguards, requiring formal judicial intervention rather than treatment as internal administrative procedure.

If Attorney General R Venkataramani grants written consent, the criminal contempt petition will officially proceed to a Supreme Court bench for hearing.