India’s Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, a 62‑year‑old bureaucrat with a 36‑year civil‑service career, is confronting a growing political storm surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the country’s electoral rolls. The exercise, which began in Bihar last year and has now expanded to most of the nation, has resulted in more than 130 million names being removed from draft voter lists across 30 states and federally administered territories – roughly 13 percent of the electorate.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) says the SIR is intended to eliminate duplicate and ineligible entries while ensuring that legitimate voters are retained. Opposition parties and civil‑society activists, however, argue that the massive deletion risks disenfranchising eligible citizens. The commission has denied any political motive, insisting that the process is purely administrative.
Alleged Internal Disagreements
An investigation by The Indian Express reported that the two other Election Commissioners – Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi – formally objected at least 14 times over a ten‑month period to decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge. The report said the disagreements touched on core aspects of the SIR, including criteria for adding or removing voters, changes to registration procedures, and access to the central database that holds hundreds of millions of voter records.
Because the Election Commission operates on a three‑member panel where decisions are taken by majority, such objections are particularly sensitive. Kumar has not responded personally to the investigation, and the BBC’s request for comment to his office went unanswered.
Following the publication of the investigation, the commission issued a statement acknowledging the reported disagreements but rejected the notion of a serious internal rupture. It described the differences as “normal deliberations” and maintained that decisions taken over the past year, including those on SIR, were ultimately unanimous. The three commissioners later met, released a joint statement, and posted a photograph of themselves together, signalling an attempt to present a united front.
Political Repercussions and Calls for Removal
Opposition parties, according to multiple media reports, are preparing a motion in both houses of parliament to seek Kumar’s removal. The youth‑led pressure group Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which previously forced a minister to resign in July, has threatened nationwide protests against the commission’s actions.
Defence of the commission has also emerged from political quarters. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, a member of the governing federal coalition, said the ECI’s clarification reaffirmed the institution’s “integrity” and criticised attempts to undermine confidence in India’s democratic processes.
Kumar’s Bureaucratic Background and Recent Reforms
Born in Uttar Pradesh, Kumar earned a civil‑engineering degree from the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur before joining the Indian Administrative Service in 1988. Early postings included district collector of Ernakulam in Kerala, where he oversaw the redevelopment of Kochi’s waterfront. Later assignments grew in political sensitivity.
In 2016, Kumar joined the Home Ministry’s division for Indian‑administered Kashmir. Three years later he helped draft the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, which paved the way for the revocation of the region’s special constitutional status and its division into two union territories. As an additional secretary in the Home Ministry, he led the team that implemented the court’s ruling and set up the trust to oversee the construction of a new temple.
Colleagues who worked with Kumar described him as meticulous, hardworking and calm under pressure. One former colleague told The Indian Express that Kumar “never left things for others, got personally involved” and “has never lost his cool.” Another praised his “hard work and intelligence” and “administrative wisdom.”
Kumar retired from the civil service in January 2024 and was appointed an Election Commissioner less than two months later, a day before the timetable for India’s general election was announced. He became Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025, the first CEC appointed under a 2023 law that replaced the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel with a cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have argued that the change weakens the commission’s independence, and Gandhi asked that Kumar’s appointment be deferred pending a Supreme Court review of the law.
Within weeks of taking office, Kumar introduced a series of administrative reforms. He mandated biometric attendance recording for staff at the commission’s headquarters, a move that reportedly improved punctuality. During his first 100 days he announced plans to reduce the number of voters assigned to each polling station, redesign voter information slips, and improve access to polling stations in densely populated cities. Media reports noted that he transferred at least ten chief electoral officers across states and union territories in his first month, a level of movement critics described as unusually high for routine changes. Kumar framed these initiatives as “EC 2.0,” a modernization drive for India’s poll machinery.
Controversy Over the Special Intensive Revision
The SIR has become the defining issue of Kumar’s tenure. As criticism mounted, Kumar publicly defended the exercise, at one point challenging Rahul Gandhi to substantiate his allegations of “vote theft” in a sworn affidavit or to apologise. The Express investigation also suggested that Commissioner Sandhu labelled one change as “unauthorised and illegal,” while both Sandhu and Joshi raised concerns about the centralisation of the electoral‑roll database and alterations to its oversight.
In response to the controversy, the commission announced procedural changes: meeting agendas will be circulated in advance, minutes will be issued, and directions from commissioners to officials will be complied with. The commission reiterated that decisions taken by the full panel over the past year were unanimous.
Whether the internal dissent and political pressure will lead to lasting consequences for Kumar or the Election Commission remains uncertain. The episode has nonetheless drawn renewed scrutiny to the SIR and to one of India’s most important constitutional institutions.
Be First to Comment