The Gyanesh Kumar Controversy and the Modi Government: When Things Go Wrong, the Crises Keep Coming
The controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has moved into a new phase, with questions now being raised not only about the Election Commission’s handling of electoral-roll revisions but also about the internal functioning of the constitutional body and the institutional framework under which its members were appointed.
The immediate trigger is an investigation published by The Indian Express showing that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions they said had been taken or implemented without their knowledge or approval. Their objections concerned voter registration and deletion, changes to Form 6, access to the electoral database and aspects of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
The significance of the allegations lies in the fact that this is not simply a dispute between political parties and the Election Commission. The reported objections came from two of the three members of the Commission itself. The Election Commission has maintained that decisions relating to SIR were taken unanimously, creating a direct institutional dispute over how the Commission’s decision-making process actually operated.
According to the reported objections, Sandhu and Joshi questioned the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and raised concerns about state-level officials’ access to the system. They also objected to changes to Form 6, the statutory form used by new voters to register, with Joshi reportedly arguing that the form could not be altered without changes to the relevant electoral-registration rules.
The dispute comes against the backdrop of the Modi government’s controversial 2023 legislation governing appointments to the Election Commission. The law replaced the Chief Justice of India’s place on the selection panel with a Union Cabinet minister, giving the government a larger role in selecting Election Commissioners. Gyanesh Kumar became the first Chief Election Commissioner appointed under that framework.
That history has made the current controversy politically more sensitive. Opposition parties have long argued that a government with greater influence over appointments to the electoral watchdog can create a perception problem even if individual decisions are legally valid. The government and supporters of the law have defended the statutory appointment mechanism; the controversy over the current Commission has nevertheless revived the earlier debate about institutional independence.
The SIR exercise has become the central battlefield. The ECI has undertaken large-scale electoral-roll verification, arguing that voter lists need to be updated by removing dead, shifted and duplicate entries and ensuring that eligible voters remain on the rolls. Critics have questioned whether the scale and implementation of the exercise could result in legitimate voters being excluded.
The numbers involved have made the dispute particularly consequential. In West Bengal, the Election Commission 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 reported, including appeals seeking both inclusion and deletion. Only 1,607 deleted voters had been reinstated in time to vote in the 2026 Assembly election.
The controversy has now reached the Supreme Court through another route. On September 25, a public-interest petition sought action against Gyanesh Kumar over alleged decisions connected with SIR that the petitioner claims were taken without the concurrence of the other Election Commissioners. The petition also sought an investigation into the alleged deletion of around 13 crore voters during the broader SIR exercise. These are allegations contained in a petition and have not been established by the Court.
The timing is significant because the Supreme Court has itself been examining aspects of the electoral-roll exercise. Earlier this week, the Court asked the Election Commission to explain the basis for issuing “logical discrepancy” notices to voters in Delhi during SIR. The Court’s scrutiny adds another layer to an already intense institutional debate over how voters are being identified, challenged and retained on electoral rolls.
For the Modi government, the difficulty is that the controversy cannot easily be separated from the broader political argument over institutional independence. Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment was made under the new selection framework, and all three current Election Commissioners were appointed through the system introduced by the 2023 law. The latest revelations have therefore reopened questions that predate the SIR controversy itself.
At the same time, it would be inaccurate to treat every criticism of the Election Commission as proof of government interference. The reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi establish that internal disagreements occurred; they do not, by themselves, establish that the Modi government directed the disputed decisions. Similarly, allegations made in petitions or by opposition politicians remain allegations unless supported by findings from an appropriate authority or court.
What makes the present moment particularly difficult is the accumulation of controversies. Questions about the appointment system were followed by disputes over SIR, concerns about voter deletions, reported disagreements among Election Commissioners, scrutiny by the Supreme Court and now a petition seeking investigation and prosecution over alleged statutory violations. Each development may have its own legal explanation, but together they create a larger public debate about institutional credibility.
The political opposition has seized on the internal disagreements as evidence of what it describes as a compromised Election Commission. Rahul Gandhi, for example, has called on Gyanesh Kumar to resign or become an “approver”, while presenting the reported disagreements of the two other Election Commissioners as evidence supporting the opposition’s allegations about SIR. Those statements are political claims, not judicial findings.
The government and the Election Commission face a different institutional challenge: demonstrating that electoral-roll revision is being conducted according to law and that legitimate voters have adequate opportunities to challenge exclusions. The larger the exercise, the greater the importance of transparent procedures, accessible appeals and clear explanations for individual decisions.
The controversy also exposes an important distinction between administrative efficiency and constitutional legitimacy. A nationwide electoral-roll revision may require centralised technology and standardised procedures. But because voting is a fundamental component of representative democracy, citizens need to understand who is making consequential decisions, under what authority, and what safeguards exist when mistakes occur.
That is why the reported disagreements between the three Election Commissioners are potentially more significant than another round of partisan accusations. If the Commission’s internal decision-making rules were followed, the institutional record should be capable of demonstrating that clearly. If procedures were bypassed, the relevant authorities will have to determine what consequences follow.
The Supreme Court now occupies an important position in resolving these questions. The Court can examine the legality of the ECI’s actions, the statutory framework governing its functioning and the safeguards available to affected voters. But it will ultimately have to distinguish between demonstrable violations, administrative disagreements and political allegations.
For the Modi government, the continuing problem is therefore not necessarily one single controversy. It is the cumulative effect of repeated institutional disputes occurring around bodies whose credibility depends heavily on public confidence. When allegations keep returning, explanations become increasingly important—not only for defeating political criticism but for demonstrating that constitutional institutions are operating within transparent rules.
The Gyanesh Kumar episode is consequently becoming a test of more than one individual’s tenure. It is testing how India’s electoral machinery handles disagreement within itself, how much independence the Election Commission possesses under the post-2023 appointment system, how effectively voters can challenge exclusion from electoral rolls, and how willing constitutional institutions are to expose their own decision-making to scrutiny.
The immediate legal questions will be decided through the courts and statutory mechanisms. The larger question—whether citizens continue to regard the Election Commission as an institution whose decisions are transparently reached and independently administered—will depend on what those processes reveal in the weeks and months ahead.
