By 
On Monday (September 28), the Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court declined to grant an urgent hearing to a writ petition. The petition questions 14 actions allegedly taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. It says this was done even though the other two Election Commissioners, Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi, reportedly objected.
What the Petition Says:
The petition was filed through Advocate Asim Sarode. It raises concerns about how decisions were allegedly taken on electoral rolls, voter registration, the electoral-roll database and the work of Electoral Registration Officers. It argues that these decisions raise serious questions about following the law and about constitutional governance.
Why the Bench Declined:
The petition was mentioned before a division bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and Justice Neeraj Dhote. The bench did not take it up immediately, saying its roster was too busy.
What It Seeks to Cancel:
The petition asks the court to cancel 14 administrative orders and actions issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the past ten months. A recent report by The Indian Express said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected to these matters.
Objections Raised:
According to the report, the objections covered several issues including:
1) Changes to Form 6, which is used to register new voters
2) Deleting and restoring voter names
3) Appeals against orders that restored voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process
4) How the electoral roll database is handled and who can access it.
Decisions Without Approval:
The report also said Sandhu and Joshi objected to some decisions allegedly being taken without their knowledge or approval. These included what they called “unauthorised and illegal” changes to Form 6, and the gradual centralisation of access to the electoral-roll database.
The two Election Commissioners also reportedly went to the Cabinet Secretary about changes in how work on the IT systems used for electoral rolls was assigned. They alleged these changes were made without their knowledge.
“The instant PIL challenges the manner in which decisions concerning the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of elections in the country have allegedly been prepared and implemented by the ECI, despite recorded objections by Sandhu and Joshi, particularly concerning voter registration, electoral- roll database and the functioning of Electoral Registration Officers,” the plea states.
Demands:
The petitioners want the court to cancel the 14 disputed actions. They also want the names of deleted voters restored.
They argue that the alleged actions amount to a “systematic erosion of constitutional norms” on managing electoral rolls. They say this affects their fundamental right to equal treatment under Article 14 and their constitutional right to vote through adult suffrage under Article 326.
The petitioners have asked for several directions including:
a)Quashing the 14 disputed actions
b)Stopping the SIR process in Maharashtra
c)Restoring deleted voter names
d)Postponing the coming State Assembly Elections until legally compliant electoral rolls are prepared and approved
e)Setting up an independent Judicial Committee to investigate the alleged irregularities.
The plea also argues that while handling electoral rolls, the ECI must take a realistic, pragmatic and flexible approach so that the country continues to be governed democratically.
Next Hearing:
The matter is likely to be taken up on October 22.
Case Details: Prathamesh Govankar & Ors v. Election Commission of India & Ors
