On Wednesday, September 23, 2026, several opposition parties in India formally demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. Their demand followed an investigative report published by The Indian Express that alleged two of the three Election Commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—had lodged formal objections at least 14 times over a ten‑month period. According to the report, the two commissioners claimed that major decisions were being taken in the name of the full Election Commission without their knowledge and described many of those decisions as “unauthorised and illegal.”
Opposition leaders rally around the call for removal
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the alleged manipulation of voter lists as “vote chori,” calling it a crime against the Indian people and a direct assault on the Constitution. He added that the BJP, RSS and the Election Commission, if involved, had committed an act of treason. Congress general secretary (organisation) K.C. Venugopal demanded that the Supreme Court take suo motu cognisance of the report and oversee an impartial investigation to “expose the rot that has destroyed the ECI’s credibility.” Venugopal further asserted that CEC Gyanesh Kumar “has no right to remain in office.”
Other opposition figures echoed the same sentiment. Congress MP Manish Tewari warned that if rules were not followed and decisions were not unanimous, “all the decisions of ECI are per‑se arbitrary and capricious if not completely illegal.” He suggested that the revelations could warrant an impeachment proceeding and questioned how the credibility of the Election Commission could ever be restored.
Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav warned that the inability of Election Commissioners to perform their duties represented “extremely fatal and dangerous circumstances for democracy.” He characterised the situation as a “conspiracy to wipe out democracy” and urged the Supreme Court to intervene suo motu.
John Brittas of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) described the Election Commission as “a one‑man autocracy under CEC Gyanesh Kumar.” He highlighted the 14 recorded objections, the alleged unauthorised addition and deletion of voters, and secret changes to Form 6 that, he said, harassed first‑time voters. Brittas called for Parliament to start the removal process for the CEC and for the Supreme Court to annul the entire Special Incremental Roll (SIR) process.
Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien noted that five months earlier more than 60 Rajya Sabha members had written to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, moving a motion to remove the CEC. In light of the new report, O’Brien said it was time to bring the motion forward and impeach the CEC to protect democracy.
Details of the Indian Express expose
The report said both Election Commissioners flagged several key concerns, most notably the centralisation of electoral rolls. In May 2026, Commissioner Vivek Joshi proposed an audit to certify that “no one except the concerned statutory authorities has any credentials to make any change in the [voter] database.” Joshi warned that any alteration to the statutory Form 6—used by new voters to register—required an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The report said the form had been changed to ask whether the applicant or their parents or grandparents “exist” in the electoral roll of the last SIR, a change Joshi labelled unauthorised.
In August 2026, Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu recorded that state‑level election officials were reporting insufficient and incomplete access to the ERONet portal, the digital system that maintains electoral rolls. Sandhu further alleged that the Commission’s Director‑General of IT, Seema Khanna, “does not have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate as given by law to the statutory authorities.” Sandhu also questioned the authority of the Commission in West Bengal to file appeals against voters already included in the rolls by judicial tribunals, noting that 38 lakh appeals remained pending.
The expose highlighted a specific case in Goa where 97 voters deemed eligible by local Electoral Registration Officers after a Supreme Court‑mandated hearing were omitted from the final roll. The omission, the report said, resulted from a centrally‑controlled software system that lacked a mechanism to record the officers’ decisions, despite the Chief Electoral Officer’s office writing eight times requesting a rollback option.
Election Commission’s response and the way forward
In response to the allegations, sources within the Election Commission of India (ECI) asserted that “all decisions of the Election Commission of India, including SIR, have been unanimous and with the approval of both the Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner.” The statement sought to counter claims that decisions were taken without the knowledge of the two dissenting commissioners.
Opposition parties, however, have not accepted the Commission’s defence. They have collectively asked the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the Indian Express report and to monitor an impartial investigation. The parties also reiterated their demand for the immediate removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, warning that any continuation of his tenure could further erode public confidence in India’s electoral system.
The controversy centers on the integrity of the Special Incremental Roll (SIR) process, a mechanism intended to update voter lists ahead of elections. Critics argue that the alleged unauthorised changes to Form 6, the alleged secret deletions and restorations of voter entries, and the lack of access for state officials to the ERONet portal undermine the constitutional right to vote—a right described by opposition leaders as the “fundamental bedrock of our democracy.”
While the Supreme Court has not yet announced any action, the opposition’s call for suo motu intervention reflects a broader concern that the judiciary may need to step in when institutional checks appear to have failed. The demand for a Supreme Court‑monitored probe also underscores the political stakes surrounding upcoming elections, where the credibility of the electoral roll could influence outcomes.
As the debate unfolds, the Parliament may also consider procedural steps to remove the CEC, a process that would require a motion in the Rajya Sabha and subsequent approval. The earlier letter from more than 60 Rajya Sabha members indicates that a formal motion could be tabled soon, though the exact timeline remains uncertain.
In summary, the opposition’s coordinated effort to oust CEC Gyanesh Kumar follows an exposé that alleges repeated, formal objections by two senior Election Commissioners to key decisions concerning voter registration and roll management. The ECI maintains that its actions were unanimous, while opposition leaders across the political spectrum have called for judicial intervention, a Supreme Court‑monitored investigation, and parliamentary action to restore confidence in India’s electoral apparatus.
Be First to Comment