A Supreme Court advocate has sought Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging wilful disregard of Supreme Court rulings governing collective decision-making within the Election Commission.
Advocate Brajesh Singh submitted the request on September 24, invoking provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and rules governing contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Attorney General’s consent is ordinarily required before a private individual can initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the apex court.
Singh’s move followed an investigative report published on September 23 which said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months to decisions or orders concerning electoral rolls. The reported disputes covered changes to Form 6, additions and deletions from voter lists, centralised control of electoral-roll software and appeals arising from the Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal.
The contempt request relies substantially on the Supreme Court’s ruling in T.N. Seshan v Union of India, under which the Chief Election Commissioner functions as the first among equals in a multi-member commission and cannot displace the institutional authority of the Commission as a whole. Singh has alleged that decisions attributed to Kumar amounted to a departure from that principle.
The allegations remain contested. The Election Commission has said its decisions, including those concerning the Special Intensive Revision, were taken unanimously and that observations or queries raised by commissioners during the drafting and deliberative stages were part of normal institutional procedure.
The Commission has acknowledged that Sandhu and Joshi raised operational issues on electoral-roll revisions and database handling, while maintaining that those exchanges did not constitute dissent from the final decisions. It has said the three-member body continued to act collectively under Article 324 of the Constitution.
Venkataramani will have to decide whether to grant consent before Singh can pursue the proposed criminal contempt proceedings through the prescribed private-complaint route. No finding of contempt has been made against Kumar, and the allegations contained in Singh’s request have yet to be tested before the Supreme Court.
