Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is facing growing demands for his resignation amid a widening controversy over the Election Commission of India's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The issue has moved beyond political statements, with reported internal objections within the three-member Election Commission, judicial scrutiny and nationwide protests demanding action against the CEC.
The immediate controversy centres on a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded formal objections at least 14 times over a period of about 10 months. According to the report, their concerns covered voter additions and deletions, changes to voter-registration procedures, access to electoral-roll databases and the handling of appeals connected with the SIR process.
What are the objections against the Election Commission?
According to the reported internal correspondence, Sandhu and Joshi questioned several decisions and administrative steps that they said were taken without their knowledge or approval.
One issue involved changes to Form 6, the application used by citizens seeking registration as voters. The report said a new question linked applicants to electoral rolls from the previous SIR exercise. Sandhu had reportedly objected to the change and described it as unauthorised and illegal, while Joshi had earlier raised concerns about whether the form could be changed without amending the relevant rules.
Another concern involved access to the electoral-roll database. The two commissioners reportedly raised questions over what they described as the gradual centralisation of access to voter databases and whether statutory officials at the state and constituency levels retained the access required under the law.
The reported objections also included questions surrounding appeals filed in West Bengal against decisions concerning voters. Sandhu reportedly asked who had authorised such appeals and who had actually filed them, stating that he, Joshi and the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal had not been informed about the basis or process involved.
What happened in Goa?
The controversy also includes an issue involving voter records in Goa. According to the investigation, Electoral Registration Officers had identified 97 voters as eligible after examining documents, but the software system did not provide a mechanism to record the reversal of earlier deletions in time.
Officials in Goa reportedly contacted senior election authorities seeking a technical solution before the final electoral roll was published. According to the report, the required software provision was not enabled in time and the 97 voters remained excluded from the final roll.
The episode has become part of the wider debate over whether centralised digital systems can override or delay decisions taken by statutory officials responsible for electoral rolls at the local level.
What does the Election Commission say?
The Election Commission has rejected the interpretation that the reported disagreements represent a breakdown of the institution or prove that decisions were taken unlawfully.
The Commission's position is that differences of opinion can arise during internal deliberations and that the final decisions of the three-member body were taken according to the applicable decision-making process. The Commission has also maintained that the SIR exercise is intended to identify and remove ineligible, duplicate, deceased or shifted voters while providing eligible citizens with mechanisms to establish their eligibility.
This distinction is important. The existence of written objections by individual commissioners does not, by itself, establish that the CEC committed misconduct or that the electoral process was legally invalid.
Why has the resignation demand intensified?
Opposition parties have argued that the reported internal objections raise serious questions about the functioning of the Election Commission and the credibility of the SIR process.
On September 25, Congress organised protests in several parts of the country demanding Kumar's resignation or removal. Demonstrations were reported in multiple states, with protesters accusing the Election Commission of irregularities in the electoral-roll revision process.
In Meghalaya, Congress workers demonstrated in Shillong and demanded Kumar's removal and arrest. Similar protests were reported in Chandigarh and other cities. These demands represent the position of the protesting political organisations and are not judicial findings against the CEC.
Rahul Gandhi has also demanded Kumar's resignation, while other opposition leaders have called for investigations into the Election Commission's functioning. The controversy has consequently become a major political issue around the SIR exercise.
There is also judicial scrutiny of SIR
The Supreme Court is examining different aspects of the SIR process. In Delhi, the court has questioned the Election Commission over notices issued to voters under the category of “logical discrepancies”. Reports on the proceedings said the court questioned whether such notices were being issued mechanically and sought greater clarity about the process.
West Bengal has also become a major part of the dispute. The Election Commission told the Supreme Court that 27.16 lakh voters had been removed during the SIR process and that more than 22 lakh of them had filed appeals seeking reinstatement. In total, more than 38 lakh appeals were pending, including appeals seeking both restoration and deletion of names.
The Election Commission has defended the deletions by citing categories such as deceased, shifted, duplicate and absentee voters. The legal process concerning individual voter cases remains separate from political allegations about the overall SIR exercise.
What does the law say about the CEC?
The Election Commission is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution. The Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners form the Commission, and the CEC is not legally an institution that can simply be removed by an ordinary executive order.
Under the constitutional framework, the Chief Election Commissioner enjoys a special protection. Removal requires a process comparable to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge and is linked to established grounds such as proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
This means that a political demand for resignation and a constitutional process for removal are two different matters. A resignation would be a voluntary decision by the office-holder, whereas removal would require the prescribed constitutional and parliamentary procedure.
Does internal disagreement automatically mean the CEC should resign?
Not necessarily. Disagreement inside a constitutional institution can occur without automatically establishing misconduct. The key question is what happened after those disagreements and whether the decisions in question complied with the Constitution, election laws, regulations and the Election Commission's own procedures.
At the same time, the reported objections are significant because they concern the core functions of the Election Commission: voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll databases and the administration of the SIR process.
The 2023 law governing the Election Commission provides that the Commission's business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where commissioners differ in opinion, the matter is decided according to the majority view. The law also provides for the Commission to regulate its procedure and allocation of work.
What would need to be established?
For the controversy to move from a political dispute to a clear legal or constitutional case against the CEC, specific facts would need to be established.
These include whether any decision was taken without the authority required by law, whether statutory procedures were bypassed, whether eligible voters were improperly excluded, whether electoral data was accessed or altered without proper authorisation, and whether any official deliberately violated legal duties.
Conversely, if official records demonstrate that disputed actions were properly authorised, that final Commission decisions followed the law and that errors were administrative or technical rather than deliberate, the existence of internal objections alone would not establish grounds for removal.
So, should Gyanesh Kumar resign?
The available evidence does not provide a basis for making that decision on behalf of voters or the public. What can be established is that the controversy is based on several documented developments: two Election Commissioners reportedly recorded repeated objections; the Election Commission has defended its decision-making process; courts are examining aspects of the SIR exercise; and political parties are demanding Kumar's resignation or removal.
The crucial issues are therefore factual and legal rather than simply political. The public record will need to establish who authorised the disputed decisions, whether the statutory procedure was followed, how eligible voters were protected from wrongful exclusion and whether any evidence supports allegations of deliberate misconduct.
The Supreme Court's proceedings, the Election Commission's official records and any future constitutional or parliamentary action will be important in determining how the controversy develops. Until those processes establish further facts, allegations made by political parties should be distinguished from findings established by a court or other competent authority.
Journalist: Vijay Singh