EC Under Fire: Opposition Seeks CEC Gyanesh Kumar's Removal Over Dissent Report
Opposition parties have demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar after a report in The Indian Express said the two other Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, recorded formal objections at least 14 times over the past ten months.
According to the report, the two commissioners alleged that key decisions were being taken in the name of the full Election Commission without their knowledge, and that some of these were described in internal notes as "unauthorised and illegal". Neither Sandhu nor Joshi has publicly commented on the report.
The Election Commission responded by stating that "differing views" are a normal part of its decision-making process. The commission has not issued any detailed response to the specific claims attributed to its two commissioners.
The report comes at a time when the poll panel is carrying out a nationwide revision of the electoral database, an exercise that opposition parties have already challenged in court and in public statements. The revision has been a source of friction between the commission and several political parties for months.
Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, speaking at a press briefing in New Delhi on Thursday (September 24), alleged that elections in India were being "rigged". He accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and CEC Gyanesh Kumar of acting as "deshdrohis" (traitors) by allegedly undermining voters' rights. These are serious accusations made by a political leader; they are allegations, not findings by any court or authority.
The Congress leader's remarks followed calls from several opposition parties for the CEC's resignation. The ruling establishment has not issued a point-by-point rebuttal to the newspaper report. No judicial or parliamentary body has so far examined the internal dissent described in the report.
It is worth setting out the legal position. Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court. In practice, this means a removal requires a parliamentary motion supported by a special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. There is no provision for the government of the day to remove a CEC at will, a safeguard written into the Constitution to protect the commission's independence.
The two other Election Commissioners do not enjoy the same removal protection as the CEC under the existing legal framework, a point that has been the subject of debate among constitutional scholars and in earlier court proceedings.
Three questions now sit at the centre of the row. First, whether the internal objections described in the report are accurate and what they concerned. Second, whether the commission's assertion that dissent is routine adequately addresses claims that decisions were taken without the knowledge of two of its three members. Third, whether the electoral roll revision should continue while these questions remain unanswered.
For voters, the practical significance is straightforward. The Election Commission conducts and supervises elections, and public confidence in its neutrality is central to the credibility of the vote. Allegations that its internal decision-making was not collective go to that confidence directly, whichever way the facts are eventually established.
The commission has said it will proceed with its scheduled work. Opposition parties have said they will keep pressing the issue, both in Parliament and in public. This publication will report further developments as they are verified.
