News report says Election Commissioners had objected on record at least 14 times over past 10 months; EC says decisions unanimous
New Delhi: Differences in the Election Commission with two election commissioners repeatedly dissenting over the SIR of voter list spilled into the open on Wednesday, triggering 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 deliberation.
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 voter list that existed before the special intensive revision (SIR).
The ruling BJP downplayed the differences within the poll panel, calling it “a reflection of pure democracy”.
The row followed a news report by The Indian Express that said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders they said were issued without their knowledge, even as the national 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 over the 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.
It said suggestions from the commissioners 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 spoken about the objections attributed to them.
In a post on X, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi alleged that the BJP, the RSS and the Election Commission had committed an act of treason by organising “vote chori”.
“Vote chori is a crime against the Indian people and a direct attack on our Constitution,” Gandhi said.
“The BJP, RSS and EC who organised it have committed an act of treason. Justice will be served,” he said. He also shared a video of earlier remarks in which he had warned EC officials that they would not be spared.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge asked whether the Rajya Sabha chairman would now decide on a notice submitted by 73 Opposition MPs on April 24 seeking Kumar’s removal. The monsoon session had not yet been prorogued, he pointed out.
“It has now been proven that the BJP and the EC looted the West Bengal Assembly polls,” former chief minister Mamata Banerjee alleged in a Facebook live. “Re-election must be held in West Bengal with the old voter list,” she added.
Banerjee said INDIA bloc partners had discussed the matter and would meet soon. She also called for nationwide protests as long as Kumar remained CEC.
Former Delhi chief minister and AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal also demanded the CEC’s arrest.
DMK president MK Stalin said Kumar “must go” and had no right to continue in office. He alleged that the SIR was riddled with irregularities and had sparked widespread unrest, particularly in West Bengal.
Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray demanded that Kumar be sacked and jailed for “murdering” democracy. He thanked Sandhu and Joshi for what he described as their courage in exposing the CEC.
Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav said governments formed when the EC was not functioning impartially were “unconstitutional”. The developments raised questions over “on whose behalf” the poll panel was functioning, he said.
CPI(M) MP John Brittas called the Election Commission under Kumar a “one-man autocracy” and urged Parliament to begin the process of removing him. The CPI(M) also demanded an immediate halt to the SIR.
TMC Rajya Sabha leader Derek O’Brien called for the pending removal notice to be taken up, while party MP Mahua Moitra described Kumar as the “original anti-national” in a post on X.
The reported objections also drew sharp comments from former chief election commissioners OP Rawat and SY Quraishi, who questioned the legality of the route adopted to change Form 6.
According to the newspaper report, Sandhu 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, 1960.
A declaration linking new voter applications to the SIR was subsequently introduced in the online form, and Sandhu recorded in a file noting in August that the change was “unauthorised and illegal” and should be removed immediately, the newspaper said.
97 Goa voters found eligible but left out of final electoral roll
Panaji : An investigative news report has highlighted a software-related issue in Goa during the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, with 97 voters reportedly left out of the final electoral roll despite Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) finding them eligible for inclusion.
According to the news report published by The Indian Express, the voters had been flagged for ‘logical discrepancies’ during the revision process. After examining documents submitted by the voters, the EROs concerned found all 97 eligible to be included in the final roll.
However, the electoral-roll software reportedly did not provide the EROs with an option to reverse the earlier deletion and restore the names.
The Goa Chief Electoral Officer’s office subsequently wrote to officials of the Election Commission in Delhi eight times between February 11 and 17.
It sought a rollback facility that would enable the EROs to implement their decisions.
The facility was reportedly not enabled before the deadline for publication of the final roll, leaving the 97 names out.
The episode has become part of wider questions raised about the centralisation of electoral-roll databases and the role of software in implementing decisions taken by statutory election officials.
The Goa case raises a specific administrative question: when an ERO decides that an eligible voter should be restored, whether the system allows that statutory decision to be implemented before the final roll is published.
