UPSC Darpan

Polity & GovernanceGS26 October 2026

Supreme Court issues notice on plea to suspend CEC, disowns modified Form 6

Open in the app — quiz, notes, Mistake Vault हिंदी में पढ़ें

The news

New Delhi, October 5. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on two petitions seeking the suspension of CEC Gyanesh Kumar for “administrative unilateralism” in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). This is a notice, not a finding: the court refused interim suspension and sought responses from the CEC, Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and two ECI officials. Three things are new. The CJI said “any modified Form 6 has not been approved by us”, although an ECI press note of September 26 claimed the court had upheld the new declaration asking whether the applicant’s or a parent’s or grandparent’s name was on an earlier roll. Decisions taken “neither by majority nor by unanimity” will have to be explained. And Justice Bagchi questioned Section 16 of the 2023 Act, which bars suits against anyone who “is or was” CEC.

The chain in one line: Anoop Baranwal (2023) seeks a neutral selection panel → the 2023 Act drops the CJI and adds Section 16 → SIR and a new Form 6 declaration draw protests → Commissioners’ objections surface → the court calls for the record

Static syllabus linkage

  1. Article 324 vests elections in the Commission and protects the CEC’s tenure. Article 324(1) gives the Election Commission superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and of elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Under Article 324(5) the CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge; other Election Commissioners only on the CEC’s recommendation.
  2. The 2023 Act governs appointment and immunity. The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 followed Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023). A committee of the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition picks from a search committee’s panel. Section 16 bars courts from entertaining civil or criminal proceedings against a serving or former CEC or EC for official acts; a Lok Prahari challenge to it has been pending since notice on January 13, 2026.

Why UPSC loves this

  1. How constitutional bodies decide is now examinable. GS2 covers “powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies”. The focus has moved from appointment to how a multi-member Commission decides.

Prelims nuggets

  • Article 324(1) vests superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections in the Election Commission.
  • Under Article 324(5), an Election Commissioner other than the CEC can be removed only on the CEC’s recommendation.
  • The selection committee under the 2023 Act is the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
  • Form 6 is the application for inclusion in the electoral roll under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

Analysis

  1. Lens — Independence and accountability: the court is testing collegiality, not independence. A three-member Commission exists so that no single officer controls the franchise; if the CEC decides alone, the other two become ornaments. Asking whether decisions had a majority enforces that internal check without second-guessing electoral policy. Recorded collegial decisions would also shield the CEC from charges of personal bias.
  2. Lifelong immunity sits awkwardly with a judge-like office. Protection in office keeps an officer free of harassing suits; extending it for life, Justice Bagchi suggested, resembles the President’s position more than a judge’s. The counter-view is that Section 16 covers only official acts and echoes the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985; the real test is whether it shields wilful misconduct.
  3. A form can disenfranchise more quietly than a deletion. Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi notes in The Indian Express that voters restored through Form 6 must declare they are applying “for the first time”, a false statement punishable under Section 31 of the RP Act, 1950; he proposes a separate “Form 6X”. In Bengal, tribunal judges say the EC portal cannot even serve notices; only 1.26 lakh of 38.31 lakh appeals are cleared. Rights are being lost in procedure.

Possible Mains question

“The Election Commission’s independence from the executive means little without accountability within the Commission.” Critically examine. (15 marks, 250 words)

Model approach

  1. Directive — Critically examine. Weigh a protected CEC against internal and judicial checks; conclude.
  2. Introduction — Article 324 builds a multi-member body with a protected head. Two lines on Article 324(1) and (5).
  3. Insulation from the executive was weakened in 2023. Value addition: Anoop Baranwal (2023) and a committee without the CJI.
  4. Unilateral decisions and lifelong immunity erode accountability within. Use the “neither by majority nor by unanimity” remark and Section 16; draw a flowchart: CEC → collegial vote → minutes → judicial review.
  5. Yet a CEC hounded by litigation cannot run elections. Note the refusal to suspend pending authenticated records.
  6. Conclusion — written rules of business, immunity limited to good-faith acts. One line.

Administrator's brainstorm

As a District Electoral Officer, you must accept restoration claims only on the new Form 6. What do you do?

I would follow the Commission’s instruction but seek written clarification on how long-time voters should treat the “first time” declaration. Meanwhile I would record each applicant’s old EPIC and roll entry so that no one is pushed into a false statement. I would also report disposal figures accurately.