Supreme Court seeks responses on challenges to CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning
publishers 19articles 26first reported 4 Oct, 02:47 UTCdeveloping since 5 Oct · 8 editions
India’s Supreme Court on Monday issued notices on petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, but declined to suspend him through an interim order.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant sought responses from the Election Commission of India, Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Union government and Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The petitions seek an independent investigation or a special investigation team probe into allegations that Kumar took decisions without the concurrence of the other commissioners. They also ask the court to invalidate the electoral-roll revision and decisions allegedly made without the commission’s collective approval.
The cases followed an Indian Express report that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions concerning the revision, including changes to voter-registration Form 6 and the handling of voter data. The commissioners reportedly said some decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation and separately raised concerns with the Cabinet Secretary about voter software.
The Election Commission has rejected reports of a rift, describing differences in views and observations as a normal part of its deliberations. It also said the commissioners’ letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation rather than policy or information-technology matters.
The petitions argued that election administration is constitutionally entrusted to the commission collectively rather than to the chief commissioner alone.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 6 articles, 6 with the publisher's own text; 3 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 12 h after the record first saw the story; the editor revised it.
- Publishers
- 19
- Source articles
- 26
- Given to the writer
- 6, 6 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 3
- This version written
- 12 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- revised
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and changed it before publication. Struck words were in the draft; underlined words are its corrections.
WHAT IT FLAGGED editor revise: One sentence misattributes a petition argument to Monday’s hearing; correcting that attribution makes the story faithful to the sources. - "During Monday’s hearing, petitioners argued that election administration is constitutionally entrusted to the commission collectively rather than to the chief commissioner alone.": The sources attribute this collective-authority argument to one of the petitions, not specifically to arguments made during Monday’s hearing.
THE DRAFT AND THE CHANGES
Supreme Court seeks responses on challenges to CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning
India’s Supreme Court on Monday issued notices on petitions challenging Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s functioning and the nationwide Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, but declined to suspend him through an interim order.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant sought responses from the Election Commission of India, Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the Union government and Deputy Election Commissioner Maneesh Garg. The petitions seek an independent investigation or a special investigation team probe into allegations that Kumar took decisions without the concurrence of the other commissioners. They also ask the court to invalidate the electoral-roll revision and decisions allegedly made without the commission’s collective approval.
The cases followed an Indian Express report that Sandhu and Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions concerning the revision, including changes to voter-registration Form 6 and the handling of voter data. The commissioners reportedly said some decisions were issued without their knowledge or recommendation and separately raised concerns with the Cabinet Secretary about voter software.
The Election Commission has rejected reports of a rift, describing differences in views and observations as a normal part of its deliberations. It also said the commissioners’ letters to the Cabinet Secretary concerned an officer on deputation rather than policy or information-technology matters.
DuringThe Monday’s hearing, petitionerspetitions argued that election administration is constitutionally entrusted to the commission collectively rather than to the chief commissioner alone.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →