By: web admin Posted on

 

 

 

 

New Delhi: The Opposition is preparing to move a fresh motion seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, intensifying its campaign against the Election Commission of India following an investigative report that highlighted internal differences within the poll panel over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

According to reports, the Congress is reaching out to its INDIA bloc allies to build consensus on the proposed move. The latest effort follows renewed political criticism of the Election Commission after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections on several occasions over decisions relating to voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll data and the SIR process.

Fresh pressure on Gyanesh Kumar

The Opposition’s proposed move comes months after an earlier attempt to initiate removal proceedings against Kumar.

On March 12, 2026, notices seeking his removal were signed by 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha MPs. The notices were subsequently rejected by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan on April 6. Reports said the presiding officers found that the allegations did not meet the threshold required to initiate the removal process.

The Opposition then submitted another notice on April 24, signed by 73 Rajya Sabha MPs. The notice cited nine charges of alleged “proven misbehaviour” against the CEC and was moved under Article 324(5) of the Constitution.

The latest proposed initiative would seek to incorporate the issues highlighted by the September investigation into a new removal effort.

What the Indian Express investigation reported

The controversy intensified after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions and orders which they said had been taken without their knowledge.

The objections reportedly covered issues including the addition of new voters, deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls, appeals concerning voters and the handling and accessibility of electoral-roll data. The investigation also reported concerns over the centralisation of access to voter databases and changes involving the statutory Form 6 used for new voter registration.

In one case, the two Election Commissioners objected to changes involving Form 6, arguing that the statutory form could not be altered without the necessary amendment to the relevant electoral rules.

The report has brought unusual attention to the functioning of the three-member Election Commission because the objections came from two of the three serving Election Commissioners.

Election Commission rejects suggestion of unilateral functioning

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the CEC acted unilaterally.

According to the Commission’s response, differences of opinion, suggestions and queries during the drafting or deliberative stages are part of normal institutional decision-making. The Commission has maintained that its decisions and orders, including those relating to SIR, were taken unanimously by the full three-member Commission.

This response is significant because the Opposition’s political argument is based largely on the reported internal objections, while the Commission maintains that the final institutional decisions were unanimous.

CJP gives 48-hour resignation deadline

The political controversy has also drawn demands from groups outside the principal Opposition parties.

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), led by founder and convener Abhijeet Dipke, on Thursday gave Gyanesh Kumar 48 hours to resign, warning of nationwide protests if he does not step down. The organisation also called for the SIR exercise to be rolled back and demanded that upcoming elections be put on hold until the issues surrounding the Election Commission are addressed.

“CEC Gyanesh Kumar is the biggest Anti National in this country. He should resign immediately,” Dipke added.

 

The CJP said the controversy was fundamentally about voters’ rights rather than the interests of any particular political party.

Removal of CEC has a constitutional procedure

The removal of a Chief Election Commissioner is governed by Article 324(5) of the Constitution. It provides that the CEC cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. The Constitution therefore sets a significantly higher threshold for removal than an ordinary administrative dismissal.

The removal process involves Parliament and is based on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, subject to the constitutional and statutory procedure.

SIR remains at the centre of the dispute

The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has been at the centre of the political confrontation for more than a year. The Indian Express investigation reported that the SIR process had resulted in more than 13 crore names being struck off draft rolls across 30 states and Union territories, although the status and treatment of individual voters vary according to the stage of the revision process.

The Opposition has repeatedly argued that the exercise could disenfranchise legitimate voters, while the Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is intended to identify eligible voters and remove inaccuracies in the rolls.

The latest internal-dissent report has now added another dimension to the controversy: not merely the political debate over SIR, but questions about decision-making, administrative control and the functioning of the Election Commission itself.

With the Congress consulting INDIA bloc partners on a possible fresh motion, the issue is set to remain a major political and constitutional flashpoint. Whether a new notice is formally submitted, and whether it secures the necessary parliamentary support to move beyond the initial stage, will determine the next phase of the confrontation over Gyanesh Kumar’s tenure and the Election Commission’s handling of the SIR exercise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *