Election Commission Row Widens as Opposition Targets CEC Over SIR
Political pressure on the Election Commission of India has intensified after reports of disagreements within the three-member poll panel prompted nationwide protests, legal action and renewed demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign.
The controversy centres on reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions between November 2025 and August 2026. The disputed matters reportedly included voter registration, deletions and restorations, changes to Form 6 for new electors, appeals involving excluded voters and the management of electoral-roll data through centralised digital systems.
Opposition parties have accused Kumar of acting unilaterally and undermining safeguards intended to protect eligible voters. These remain political allegations, and the Election Commission has rejected claims that its final decisions lacked the full panel’s approval.
Protests and resignation demands
Congress workers staged demonstrations in Delhi and at least 11 states and Union Territories on September 25, attempting to march towards election offices. Police used barricades and, in some locations, water cannons, while several party leaders and workers were briefly detained.
The Congress has demanded Kumar’s resignation or removal, an independent investigation into decisions taken during his tenure and a review of electoral-roll changes. Other opposition parties have called for the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, to be halted. Some leaders have gone further by demanding criminal proceedings, fresh elections in states where revised rolls were used and scrutiny supervised by the Supreme Court.
In Karnataka, the state Congress announced a protest at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park on September 26. Karnataka Chief Minister D K Shivakumar backed the call for Kumar to step down, while arguing that voter-list revision itself is necessary but must not be used to exclude eligible citizens or advance political interests.
Five Left parties have also announced protests from September 26 to October 2, seeking the CEC’s removal and suspension of the SIR. The Cockroach Janata Party, a protest movement, has threatened a wider agitation beginning in Mumbai on October 2 unless Kumar resigns.
Karnataka notices raise voter concerns
The dispute has immediate significance in Karnataka, where approximately 41.6 lakh of 43.8 lakh notices generated during the SIR had been delivered by September 25. The notices concern electors flagged for what officials describe as logical discrepancies, including mismatches involving names, ages, relatives or older electoral records.
Karnataka’s draft roll contained about 4.48 crore electors, down from roughly 5.54 crore before the revision. Congress leaders have described the difference of more than 1.07 crore entries as mass deletion and have alleged that Dalit, minority and other vulnerable voters face disproportionate exclusion.
Election officials have stressed that receiving a notice does not automatically mean a voter will be deleted. A notice is intended to give the elector an opportunity to provide information or documents before the registration officer makes a decision. Hearings are due to continue in October, with the final Karnataka electoral roll scheduled for publication on October 27.
That distinction is crucial: the draft roll and notice stage remain open to claims, corrections, hearings and appeals. However, voters and civil-society volunteers have complained of technical problems, inconsistent document demands and difficulties confirming whether submitted records have been accepted.
Poll panel and ruling alliance respond
The Election Commission has said that written observations and technical suggestions are normal checks within a multi-member constitutional body. It maintains that all final SIR orders and electoral reforms were approved unanimously, followed statutory procedures and were designed to protect voter rights. The panel has also said its digital platforms operate under security controls intended to prevent unauthorised changes.
The Bharatiya Janata Party has defended the Commission. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra argued that internal discussion demonstrated democratic deliberation rather than unilateral rule and challenged the Opposition to pursue a formal parliamentary removal motion instead of relying on protests and accusations.
Some members of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance have nevertheless requested a fuller public explanation. Union minister Chirag Paswan said the Commission must preserve public trust by clearly addressing questions about its conduct, while Upendra Kushwaha said confusion surrounding the SIR should be resolved through an immediate clarification.
Legal and electoral stakes
Under Indian law, the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be dismissed by the government through an ordinary executive decision. Removal requires the same demanding parliamentary process applicable to a Supreme Court judge, including special majorities in both Houses on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Resignation, however, would be Kumar’s own decision.
A petition filed in the Supreme Court seeks action over alleged unilateral decisions, digital changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll systems. The claims have not been adjudicated. Courts are also examining broader questions connected to the law governing appointments to the Commission.
Beyond Kumar’s position, the dispute will determine whether millions of flagged or excluded names are restored before final rolls are issued. It also tests the transparency of the Commission’s internal decision-making and public confidence in the institution responsible for administering India’s elections.
