‘Resign, Halt Polls, Repeal 2023 Law’: CJP’s 3 Demands From EC Amid Dissent Row; Dipke Warns of Protest

New Delhi: The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has announced three demands from the Election Commission of India amid a controversy over reported objections recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on decisions taken within the poll panel.

At a press conference on Thursday, CJP called for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a freeze on the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and a halt to upcoming elections. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke also warned that the group would launch a protest if Kumar did not resign within 48 hours.

What are CJP’s three demands?

The group has listed three principal demands:

• Resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar

• Freeze on the ongoing SIR exercise

• Halt to upcoming elections

The group has also called for the repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, as reflected in its demand over the existing electoral framework.

Dipke said the group would organise what he described as “Jantar Mantar 2.0” if Kumar did not resign within the 48-hour period.

What triggered the latest Election Commission controversy?

The demands come after a report by The Indian Express said Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over a 10-month period to decisions taken in the Commission’s name.

According to the report, the objections covered issues including changes to Form 6, centralisation of the ERONet system and appeals concerning voter deletions.

The report also said Sandhu and Joshi separately wrote to Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan regarding changes to the Election Commission’s information-technology systems, expressing concerns about oversight of systems used for managing electoral rolls.

Election Commission says decisions were unanimous

The Election Commission has disputed any suggestion that the reported objections amounted to a division in its final decision-making.

In its response, the ECI said that all decisions of the Commission, including those relating to SIR, had been unanimous and had the approval of the Chief Election Commissioner and both Election Commissioners.

The poll body also said that differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberations in an institution and can form part of the decision-making process before a final decision is reached.

The distinction is important: reported internal objections do not by themselves establish that a final Election Commission decision was taken without the agreement of all three commissioners.

What is the SIR exercise?

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an electoral-roll revision exercise being undertaken by the Election Commission.

The process has attracted political and public attention over the verification and inclusion of voters in electoral rolls. Questions concerning Form 6 and voter deletions have also featured in the latest reports about internal objections within the Commission.

The ECI maintains that the electoral-roll exercise and its related decisions have received the approval of all three commissioners.

CJP’s protest warning

Dipke said CJP would proceed with a protest if the Chief Election Commissioner did not resign within the deadline announced by the group.

The proposed protest is a political pressure campaign and does not represent a decision by the Election Commission, the government or a court.

There has been no indication in the Election Commission’s response that it intends to accept CJP’s demands. The ECI has instead maintained that differences during deliberations are part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body.

The wider debate over the Election Commission

The latest dispute has renewed attention on the internal functioning of the Election Commission, particularly the relationship between the Chief Election Commissioner and the other Election Commissioners.

The controversy also comes amid broader debates over electoral-roll revision, the use of technology in election administration and the statutory framework governing appointments to the poll panel.

For now, the positions of the two sides remain distinct: CJP is demanding institutional and electoral changes, while the Election Commission says its final decisions have been unanimous and that internal differences are a normal part of deliberation.