Opposition Seeks CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Removal After Reports of Internal EC Objections; EC Says Final Decisions Were Unanimous

NEW DELHI, September 24: Opposition parties have intensified demands for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar after an investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised formal objections at least 14 times over 10 months to aspects of electoral-roll revision and internal decision-making. The Election Commission has acknowledged that differing views were expressed during deliberations but maintains that its final decisions over the past year were taken unanimously.

Report Details 14 Internal Objections

The Indian Express investigation reported that Sandhu and Joshi recorded objections concerning decisions involving new voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals involving electoral rolls and control of voter-roll software.

According to the report, the two commissioners said on several occasions that steps had been taken without their knowledge or despite their written advice. Their objections were communicated to CEC Gyanesh Kumar or senior Election Commission officials.

Form 6 Change Among Issues Raised

One of the reported disputes involved Form 6, which is used for registering new voters.

Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi recorded in May that the form could not be altered without amendments to the Registration of Electors Rules, while Sandhu agreed with that position. A declaration related to the Special Intensive Revision nevertheless later appeared on the online form.

Sandhu subsequently described the change in an internal note as unauthorised and directed that it be removed, according to documents reviewed by The Indian Express.

Commissioners Also Raised Concerns Over Voter Database

Another issue related to the Election Commission’s digital infrastructure and control over electoral-roll data.

The reported internal notes included concerns that access to the voter database was becoming increasingly centralised and that state-level election officials did not have complete access to systems required for their statutory work.

Sandhu and Joshi also wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary over changes in allocation of responsibilities concerning IT systems, according to the investigation.

Election Commission Says Differences Are Normal

Responding to the reports, the Election Commission said that “differing views and observations” are a normal part of deliberations within a multi-member institution.

It described written observations, technical suggestions and internal checks as standard practices aimed at improving electoral processes.

The Commission further said that electoral-roll revision, including the Special Intensive Revision, and other reforms undertaken over the past year were ultimately based on unanimous decisions of the full Commission.

EC Does Not Dispute Existence of Internal Notes

The Election Commission’s response did not dispute the existence of the reported internal notes.

However, it rejected the suggestion that they established a breakdown in the Commission’s functioning, arguing that highlighting selected observations without considering subsequent deliberations and final approvals presented only part of the decision-making process.

The Commission also said its digital platforms operate under data-security and audit controls and that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers retain their statutory responsibilities over voter registration and deletion.

Opposition Parties Demand CEC’s Removal

Several opposition parties have cited the reported objections to demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

Congress leaders, along with representatives of the TMC, AAP, DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), CPI(M) and other opposition parties, have called for his removal and demanded closer scrutiny of the Special Intensive Revision process. Some leaders have also sought an independent or court-monitored investigation. These are political demands based on their interpretation of the reported internal records; no court or independent authority has concluded that the CEC committed wrongdoing.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said that 73 opposition Rajya Sabha MPs had submitted a notice in April seeking Kumar’s removal and called for action on that pending notice.

BJP Rejects Opposition Allegations

The BJP has rejected the opposition’s conclusions.

Party spokesperson Sambit Patra argued that differing views among Election Commissioners during internal discussions showed that members were free to express their opinions and described such exchanges as part of a democratic decision-making process.

The Election Commission has similarly maintained that the reported objections were part of deliberations before final decisions were reached.

Removing a CEC Requires Special Constitutional Process

Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, a Chief Election Commissioner cannot simply be dismissed by the government.

The CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court, giving the office special constitutional protection.

The Election Commission itself notes that all three commissioners have an equal role in decision-making and that the multi-member body can decide matters by majority where views differ.

The controversy is therefore likely to remain focused on both the reported internal records and whether opposition parties pursue the constitutional removal process in Parliament.

source – Election Commission of India / The Indian Express / PTI / The New Indian Express

Supreme News Network