New Delhi: As many as 14 written objections in 10 months, allegations of key electoral decisions being taken without the knowledge of two Election Commissioners, and now a bid to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The internal differences within the Election Commission of India (ECI) have taken a legal turn, with a Supreme Court advocate seeking the Attorney General of India’s consent to move the apex court against the CEC.

Advocate Brajesh Singh on Thursday, September 24, sought statutory consent from Attorney General R Venkataramani to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Kumar.

His request comes in the wake of a report in The Indian Express that highlighted what it described as a breakdown of consensus within the three-member Election Commission.

Singh has cited the report alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally recorded their objections at least 14 times over the past 10 months. According to the report, the objections related to several decisions concerning the functioning of the poll panel and the management of electoral rolls.

Among the issues cited by Singh are changes to voter-registration software, alterations to Form 6 and the deletion and restoration of voter names during the Special Intensive Revision process.

The advocate alleged that the two Election Commissioners had described several such actions as 'unauthorised' and 'illegal', claiming they were undertaken without their knowledge or the approval of the full Commission.

Singh has argued that the alleged conduct amounts to a violation of the institutional framework governing the Election Commission and runs contrary to Supreme Court judgments dealing with the functioning of the poll panel.

He specifically referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in TN Seshan versus Union of India and Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India.

According to Singh, these judgments establish the importance of the Election Commission functioning as a multi-member constitutional body.

The advocate has also challenged the interpretation of the CEC's position within the Commission, arguing that the Chief Election Commissioner is primus inter pares, or first among equals, rather than an authority possessing unilateral powers over the other Election Commissioners.

'Bypassing fellow Commissioners to secretly issue public dictates under the banner of ‘full Commission’ constitutes willful defiance of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141,' Singh said in his submission.

He further alleged that reducing the constitutionally mandated multi-member institution to what he described as a 'one-man autocracy' had the effect of undermining the authority of the Election Commission and raised concerns about the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections.

The allegations, however, are yet to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

The controversy centres on the reported differences between Kumar and the two Election Commissioners over several aspects of electoral administration.

The Indian Express report said the objections covered issues relating to voter registration, electoral-roll revisions, deletion and restoration of names and the handling of voter data.

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that its decisions were being taken outside the collective framework of the Commission.

In its response to the report, the poll panel maintained that differences and observations are part of institutional deliberations and said decisions taken during the period in question were unanimous decisions of the full Commission.

Singh’s request to the Attorney General is the first step in the proposed contempt proceedings.

A private individual seeking to initiate criminal contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court requires the written consent of the Attorney General or Solicitor General under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The requirement means that Singh cannot directly institute the proposed criminal contempt proceedings without first obtaining the requisite statutory consent.

If the Attorney General grants consent, Singh can proceed with filing the contempt petition before the Supreme Court, where the allegations concerning the functioning of the Election Commission and the role of the CEC could come under judicial scrutiny.

For now, the request places the reported divisions within the Election Commission in a new legal context, shifting the focus from internal disagreements over electoral administration to questions about the constitutional functioning and collective decision-making of the country's apex poll body.