CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Why India’s Election Commission Is in the Eye of a Storm — Again
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is facing renewed scrutiny as India’s Election Commission confronts a combination of internal disagreements, controversy over electoral-roll revisions and a fresh constitutional challenge to the system under which Election Commissioners are appointed. What began as a dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has now expanded into a broader debate about the independence and functioning of India’s election watchdog.
The immediate controversy erupted after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period. The reported objections concerned electoral-roll decisions, voter deletions, registration procedures, voter-data management and aspects of the SIR exercise. Four objections were reportedly recorded on a single day.
The Election Commission has not denied that the two commissioners raised concerns. Its position, however, is materially different from the interpretation that has emerged in the political debate. ECI sources have said that individual opinions expressed during deliberations should not be treated as decisions of the Commission and that all final decisions, including those relating to SIR, were approved unanimously by all three commissioners.
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy. A commissioner formally objecting to a proposal does not by itself establish that the final decision was unlawful or that the Commission acted without the required majority. The unresolved question is what happened between the objections being recorded and the decisions ultimately being implemented.
The controversy has become particularly sensitive because the disputed issues involve electoral rolls. A voter-list decision can determine whether an individual is able to participate in an election, making the procedures for inclusion, deletion, restoration and appeal especially consequential.
West Bengal illustrates the scale of the problem. The Election Commission recently told the Supreme Court that 27.16 lakh voters had been removed during the SIR process and that more than 22 lakh of those voters subsequently appealed for reinstatement. In total, 38.31 lakh appeals were filed, including appeals seeking both inclusion and deletion. Only 1,607 voters had been reinstated in time to vote in the 2026 Assembly election.
The Supreme Court has also begun examining questions surrounding the transparency of SIR. In Delhi, the Court recently asked the Election Commission to explain the basis for issuing notices under the category of “logical discrepancies” to voters. The Court’s intervention does not amount to a finding that the ECI acted unlawfully, but it demonstrates that the methodology behind the electoral-roll exercise is receiving judicial scrutiny.
Then came another development that broadened the controversy beyond SIR itself. On September 25, a public-interest petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against Gyanesh Kumar over alleged unilateral decisions connected with SIR. The petition alleges that decisions, guidelines and software modifications were undertaken without the required concurrence of the other commissioners and seeks investigation and prosecution under applicable law. These are allegations in a pending petition, not established findings of the Supreme Court.
The controversy is also unfolding at precisely the moment when the constitutional basis of the Election Commission’s appointment system has come under renewed judicial examination.
On September 23, the Supreme Court referred challenges to the 2023 law governing the appointment of the CEC and Election Commissioners for consideration by a Constitution Bench. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India’s position on the selection committee with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The current three-member selection committee therefore consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The Court has not struck down the 2023 law. The larger constitutional question remains unresolved. Among the issues to be considered is whether the appointment structure provides sufficient protection for an independent Election Commission, given the constitutional requirement of free and fair elections.
The timing has inevitably intensified scrutiny of Gyanesh Kumar because he became Chief Election Commissioner under the new framework. The appointment mechanism was already politically contentious: opposition representatives had recorded objections to appointments made under the new system, while the government has defended the statutory framework enacted by Parliament.
Gyanesh Kumar’s previous career has also become part of the public discussion. Before joining the Election Commission, he held senior positions in the Union government, including responsibilities associated with major policy decisions. Those biographical facts do not establish political dependence or improper conduct, but they have become relevant to the broader debate about perceptions of institutional independence.
That “perception” question has now received judicial attention as well. In the challenge to the appointment law, Justice Dipankar Datta observed that it is not enough for the Election Commission to be independent; it must also appear independent. His comments were made as part of preliminary constitutional reasoning, not as a final determination that the existing appointment system is unconstitutional.
The political reaction has been intense. Opposition parties have used the reported 14 objections as evidence supporting their broader criticism of the ECI and have demanded action against Gyanesh Kumar. Some opposition leaders have called for his resignation or removal. These are political positions rather than judicial findings, and the Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported internal objections demonstrate that its final decisions were not unanimous.
At the same time, the ECI has continued to present a united public face. Reporting by India Today found that the three commissioners participated together in several public briefings during the period in which the internal objections were reportedly being recorded. This reinforces the distinction between private institutional deliberation and the Commission’s publicly stated position.
The central issue is therefore not simply whether Gyanesh Kumar and his fellow commissioners disagreed. Constitutional and administrative bodies routinely contain differing views. The more important questions are whether the disagreements were properly considered, whether the statutory decision-making process was followed and whether the final decisions can be independently examined through documentary records.
SIR has made those questions unusually important because the exercise affects millions of electoral records. The larger the number of voters affected, the greater the need for clear criteria, accessible appeals, transparent documentation and safeguards against erroneous exclusion.
There is also a fundamental difference between proving institutional wrongdoing and demonstrating an institutional trust problem. The available evidence does not establish that Gyanesh Kumar personally manipulated elections or that the Modi government directed the disputed ECI decisions. But repeated controversies involving appointments, electoral-roll revisions, internal objections and judicial scrutiny can create a continuing public debate about whether the Commission is sufficiently independent and transparent.
That is why the current controversy is larger than one CEC or one electoral-roll exercise. It brings together three separate questions: how the ECI makes decisions internally, how voters are protected when electoral-roll decisions are disputed, and whether the constitutional structure for appointing Election Commissioners adequately protects institutional independence.
The coming constitutional proceedings could become particularly important. If the Supreme Court’s eventual Constitution Bench examines the 2023 appointment law alongside the continuing controversy over the Commission’s functioning, the debate could move from individual allegations to the institutional architecture of India’s electoral system.
For now, the facts remain contested. The ECI says final decisions were unanimous. Reports indicate repeated written objections by two commissioners. The Supreme Court is examining aspects of the electoral-roll process and has referred the appointment-law challenge for larger constitutional consideration. A fresh petition against Gyanesh Kumar is also before the Court.
The larger test will be whether these institutions can provide a clear documentary and legal account of how consequential electoral decisions were made. For the Election Commission, credibility ultimately depends not only on conducting elections, but on convincing voters that the machinery determining who appears on the electoral roll operates according to transparent, predictable and independently reviewable rules.
That is what has put CEC Gyanesh Kumar—and the Election Commission under his leadership—back at the centre of India’s institutional storm.
