Election Commission Defends CEC’s Authority and Decision-Making in Supreme Court Filing
publishers 101articles 200first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 30 editions
India’s Election Commission told the Supreme Court that its electoral roll revision orders were adopted unanimously and rejected allegations that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar had acted unilaterally.
In a joint affidavit filed by the commission, Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, the officials said commission decisions are vetted at several levels and ordinarily bear the signatures of all three members before being implemented. When urgent action is required and a member cannot be present, approval may be obtained electronically and recorded later in the official file.
The affidavit said any difference of opinion among members would be resolved by majority vote under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. It also argued that efforts to restrain the CEC from performing his duties would be contrary to that law, which provides that the CEC can be removed only on the same grounds and through the same process as a Supreme Court judge.
The commission disputed claims of internal friction based on media reporting, saying it had neither released nor authorized the release of internal notes or files to any news organization. The filing came in cases brought by petitioners including India’s Lok Sabha opposition leader, other INDIA bloc politicians, Rakesh Kumar Singh and advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 3 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 558 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 101
- Source articles
- 200
- Given to the writer
- 8, 3 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 558 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
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 →