Differ ences in the Election Com mission with two election commissioners repeatedly dissenting over the SIR of voter list spilled into the open on Wednesday, trigger ing opposition demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s removal and arrest, even as the poll panel defended differing views as a normal part of de liberation. The Congress dubbed the row ‘Gyaneshgate’, while the Trinamool Congress led by Mamata Banerjee demanded CEC Kumar’s impeachment and fresh assembly elections in West Bengal using the vot er list that existed before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The ruling BJP down played the differences within the poll panel, calling it “a re flection of pure democracy”.
The row followed a report by a national daily that said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to deci sions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge, even as the na tional rollout of the SIR was under the supervision of the full commission. Their objections covered the manner in which the statutory voter registration Form 6 was amended, the handling of additions and deletions from voter lists, and centralised control overthe electoral roll database, according to the report. The Election Commission asserted that all its official orders, decisions and administrative directions carry full legal sanctions and that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
It said suggestions from the com missioners were aimed at improving electoral processes and maintained that the final decisions of the full commission, including those relating to the SIR, were unanimous. Neither Sandhu nor Joshi has publicly spo ken about the objections attributed to them. The reported objections also drew sharp comments from former chief election com missioners O P Rawat and S Y Quraishi, who questioned the legality of the route adopted to change Form 6. According to the newspaper report, Sand hu and Joshi observed in separate file notings that Form 6 could not be changed through instructions issued for the SIR and that the legally sustainable course was to amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960A declaration linking new voter applications to the SIR was subsequently introduced in the online form, and Sand hu recorded in a file noting in August that the change was “unauthorised and illegal” and should be removed imme diately, the newspaper said. Rawat, who served as CEC in 2018, said the situation was unusual. “I have also been there, but I saw that decisions were al ways taken unanimously,” he told PTI Videos. On the manner in which Form 6 was changed, he said, “It is absolutely wrong and illegal.” He described the SIR as a “Frankenstein which has created fear in the minds of voters everywhere”.
Quraishi, who served as CEC from 2010 to 2012, said the two serving election commissioners were right to ar gue that an addition to Form 6 required an amendment to the rules. “If the entire exercise of revising the electoral rolls has been illegal, then you cannot hold an election on the basis of an illegal electoral roll,” he said. He said it was legally possible to revert to the rolls that existed before the SIR if mistakes had been made. “If they can go back to 2002, why not go back to 2025?” he asked. Rawat also criticised the reported centralisation of con trol over the electoral roll database, saying software could not be allowed to prevent field officials from acting on de cisions they had reached after examining a voter’s case. He also questioned why the two commissioners had not raised their concerns publicly earlier. The disclosures prompted a broad political response, with Opposition parties targeting Kumar and demanding action against him. Congress dubbed the controversy “Gya neshgate”, while party leaders Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Jairam Ramesh called for Kumar’s removal or resignation and alleged irregular ities in the electoral process. Gandhi alleged that the BJP, RSS and Election Commis sion had committed “vote chori”, calling it “a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution”.
Kharge asked whether the Rajya Sabha chairman would take up the removal notice submitted by 73 Opposition MPs on April 24. Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee alleged that the BJP and EC had “looted” the West Bengal Assem bly polls and demanded fresh elections using the voter list that existed before the SIR. She also called for nationwide protests. AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, DMK president M K Stalin, Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, Samajwa di Party president Akhilesh Yadav and CPI(M) leaders also demanded Kumar’s removal or other action. Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal called for Kumar’s immedi ate suspension, an FIR into the decisions attributed to the CEC and a halt to finalisation of voter lists. TMC’s Derek O’Brien sought action on the pending removal notice. The BJP, however, defended the functioning of the poll panel.
Addressing a press conference at the party head quarters, spokesperson Sambit Patra said differing views among commissioners in official deliberations reflected “pure democracy”. If commissioners did not communicate and exchange views, he said, the Opposition would accuse them of being “yes men” of the government. Under Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, the com mission’s business is to be transacted unanimously as far as possible. Where members differ, the matter is decided according to the majority opinion.
