Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar is facing intensified political and legal scrutiny, with protests, an online petition and court proceedings emerging around the Election Commission of India’s handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The developments come amid a wider political dispute over the functioning of the poll panel.
On Friday, September 25, the Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee’s OBC department put up posters near the ITO intersection carrying the message, “Gyanesh Hatao, Chunav Aayog Bachao” — or “Remove Gyanesh, Save Election Commission.” The campaign followed Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s call for Kumar’s resignation a day earlier.
The Indian Youth Congress has also launched an online campaign titled “Gyanesh, It’s Done Bro”. According to the organisation’s statement, its petition calls for action against the CEC, an investigation into the electoral process and voter rolls, and the public disclosure of electoral records and internal objections raised within the Election Commission.
The controversy is linked in part to reports about disagreements within the Election Commission over decisions connected with the SIR exercise. Reports have said that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on multiple occasions concerning decisions and administrative processes. The Election Commission, however, has said that its decisions over the past year were unanimous and that differences of opinion are a normal part of institutional deliberations.
The issue has also moved into the courts. A petition before the Kolhapur Bench of the Bombay High Court challenges 14 administrative actions attributed to the Election Commission and CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The petition seeks, among other things, restoration of voters removed from Maharashtra’s electoral rolls during the SIR and a halt to the revision exercise in the state.
Separately, a public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking action over alleged decisions taken by the Election Commission despite objections from two Election Commissioners. The plea seeks a declaration that decisions taken without the concurrence of a majority of Election Commissioners are illegal and void, along with an investigation into the alleged deletion of voters. These are demands made in the petition and have not been judicially established.
The developments mark a significant escalation in the political and legal debate surrounding the Election Commission and the ongoing SIR process. The petitions and political campaigns will now face scrutiny through the respective judicial and institutional processes, while the Election Commission’s position remains that its decisions have followed its institutional procedures.
