A Supreme Court advocate has sought the Attorney General’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that certain actions of the Election Commission of India violated Supreme Court judgments governing the functioning of the poll panel.
Advocate Brajesh Singh submitted his request to Attorney General R. Venkataramani on September 24, invoking provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Supreme Court’s contempt rules.
What the Advocate Has Alleged
The request is based partly on reports about disagreements within the Election Commission. The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over decisions they said were taken without their knowledge or approval.
The issues reportedly included changes involving electoral rolls, Form 6 and access to electoral data.
Singh has argued that such alleged functioning would conflict with Supreme Court rulings that recognise the ECI as a multi-member constitutional body. These are allegations contained in the advocate’s request and have not been established by a court.
Supreme Court Judgments Cited
The advocate has referred to the Supreme Court’s T.N. Seshan v. Union of India judgment, which dealt with the relationship between the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
He has also cited the 2023 Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India judgment while arguing that the independence of the Election Commission is central to the constitutional framework governing elections.
The request therefore centres on whether alleged unilateral decision-making, if established, could amount to wilful disobedience of binding judicial directions.
Attorney General’s Consent Is the Next Step
The letter does not itself initiate a contempt case.
Under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, criminal contempt proceedings initiated by a private individual before the Supreme Court require written consent from the Attorney General or Solicitor General. If consent is granted, proceedings could subsequently be instituted before the Supreme Court.
The request comes a day after the Supreme Court referred challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of Chief Election Commissioners and Election Commissioners to a larger bench. Justice Dipankar Datta separately raised questions about the independence of the current appointment mechanism.
The contempt request and the appointment-law challenge are separate legal matters, although both concern questions surrounding the institutional independence and functioning of the Election Commission.
