'One-Man Autocracy' Under CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Opposition Reacts to Report of Poll Panel Differences

Opposition Targets CEC Gyanesh Kumar Over Reported EC Differences

A fresh political controversy has erupted over the functioning of the Election Commission of India after a report claimed that two Election Commissioners had formally raised objections to several decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Opposition parties on September 23 sharply criticised Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with CPI(M) MP John Brittas describing the situation as a "one-man autocracy" under the CEC.

The reactions followed an Indian Express report claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected to decisions and orders concerning electoral-roll revisions on at least 14 occasions over the previous 10 months.

The Election Commission has disputed the interpretation of these objections, saying that individual views expressed during internal deliberations do not constitute decisions of the Commission and that official decisions were taken unanimously.

What Did the Report Claim?

According to the report cited by the Opposition, Sandhu and Joshi recorded objections on at least 14 occasions regarding various decisions and orders connected with electoral-roll management.

The report said four objections were recorded on a single day and that the commissioners had raised concerns about actions they said were taken without their knowledge.

The reported areas of concern included voter additions and deletions, restoration of names, changes involving electoral-roll data and aspects of the SIR process.

The report has not established that any Election Commission decision was legally invalid. The Election Commission has specifically rejected that interpretation and said that the final decisions of the full Commission were unanimous.

Election Commission Says Decisions Were Unanimous

The Election Commission responded to the controversy by distinguishing between internal deliberations and final decisions.

According to the poll panel, written notes, suggestions and differing views among Election Commissioners are a normal part of institutional decision-making. It said such internal checks are intended to improve transparency, legal compliance and operational scrutiny.

The Commission said all official orders and decisions relating to SIR, electoral-roll revisions and other reforms had the required legal sanction.

It also said that focusing on 14 internal notes without considering the larger number of approvals, decisions and instructions issued by the Commission presents only one part of the institutional process.

What Is the Special Intensive Revision?

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

The exercise has become politically contentious because of the large number of voter names being reviewed, deleted, restored or subjected to verification.

The current controversy is particularly significant because several Opposition parties have already questioned the methodology and impact of SIR, especially in relation to voters whose names or details may not match older electoral records.

The Election Commission has maintained that the purpose of electoral-roll revision is to ensure that eligible voters are included while removing duplicate, deceased, shifted or otherwise ineligible entries.

Why the Report Has Triggered Political Reactions

The reported objections have drawn attention because the Election Commission is a three-member constitutional body headed by the CEC.

Opposition leaders argue that if important electoral decisions were being questioned internally, the public should know the nature of those disagreements and how final decisions were reached.

The Election Commission, on the other hand, says disagreement during internal deliberations does not mean that the institution itself failed to reach a collective decision.

This distinction between internal objections and final institutional decisions is central to the current controversy.

Jairam Ramesh Raises Questions

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh shared the report on social media and said Congress would address what he described as serious revelations concerning the functioning and credibility of the Election Commission.

Congress MP Manish Tewari also questioned whether decisions could be considered valid if, as alleged, the prescribed decision-making procedures were not followed.

These are political responses to the reported internal objections and do not constitute independent findings that the Election Commission acted unlawfully.

John Brittas Calls It 'One-Man Autocracy'

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas used the phrase "one-man autocracy" while criticising the reported differences within the poll panel.

Brittas alleged that the two Election Commissioners had objected to voter additions, mass deletions, restorations and changes involving Form 6.

He called for Parliament to initiate the process for removal of the CEC and also demanded judicial intervention over the SIR process.

His statements are political allegations and demands; the Election Commission has not accepted his characterisation of its functioning.

Opposition Leaders Demand Action Against CEC

Several Opposition leaders have called for action against Gyanesh Kumar.

TMC Rajya Sabha leader Derek O'Brien said that a parliamentary motion seeking Kumar's removal should be brought forward, referring to an earlier motion reportedly submitted by Rajya Sabha members.

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav also questioned the functioning of the Election Commission and called for the Supreme Court to take note of the reported developments.

Other Opposition leaders, including AAP's Arvind Kejriwal and Shiv Sena (UBT)'s Sanjay Raut, have also demanded action against the CEC and questioned the SIR process.

Rahul Gandhi Also Reacts to the Controversy

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi criticised the Election Commission in the context of the broader dispute over electoral-roll revisions.

Gandhi described the issue as a serious threat to the electoral process and linked it to his party's continuing allegations concerning voter-list manipulation.

His comments form part of the Opposition's broader political campaign around electoral-roll revision and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Former CEC Raises Concerns About Form 6

The controversy has also drawn comments from former Chief Election Commissioner O P Rawat.

Rawat reportedly described certain changes concerning the statutory voter-registration Form 6 as "absolutely wrong and illegal" and characterised the reported differences within the Commission as serious.

These comments concern the reported procedures and should be distinguished from a judicial determination about the legality of the current SIR exercise.

What Is the Election Commission's Defence?

The Election Commission's central response is that internal discussion should not be confused with institutional disagreement over final decisions.

The poll panel said individual Election Commissioners can have different opinions on particular matters. However, according to the Commission, decisions formally issued by the Election Commission were approved unanimously by all three members.

The EC therefore rejected the suggestion that the reported objections meant that SIR or other electoral-roll decisions were being taken unilaterally.

Reported Objections and EC Response

IssueReported/claimed positionElection Commission's responseInternal objectionsTwo commissioners reportedly objected on 14 occasionsInternal views are part of normal deliberationsSIR decisionsOpposition questioned whether decisions were properly approvedEC says SIR decisions were unanimousVoter additions/deletionsConcerns reportedly raised over electoral-roll changesEC says final orders had legal sanctionInternal notesSome objections were reportedly recorded formallyEC says individual notes do not constitute Commission decisionsCEC's roleOpposition accused Kumar of centralising authorityEC rejects the interpretationRemoval demandSeveral Opposition leaders called for Kumar's removalNo such finding has been made by a court

Why the SIR Issue Is Politically Sensitive

SIR has become one of the most contentious electoral issues in India.

Opposition parties have argued that large-scale voter verification and deletion could affect eligible voters, particularly those who face difficulties establishing links with older electoral records.

The Election Commission has maintained that electoral-roll revision is necessary to identify duplicate, deceased, shifted and otherwise ineligible entries while protecting the rights of eligible voters.

The current controversy adds another layer because it concerns not only the substance of SIR but also the internal functioning of the institution conducting it.

Does the Report Prove That the EC Acted Illegally?

No.

The reported objections show that disagreements or concerns were recorded during internal deliberations, according to the cited report. But the Election Commission says these were part of the normal decision-making process and that final decisions were unanimous.

Whether any particular order or procedure was unlawful would ultimately require examination under the applicable constitutional, statutory and judicial framework.

Political statements alleging illegality should therefore be distinguished from established legal findings.

Calls for Removal of the CEC

The controversy has renewed Opposition demands for the removal of Gyanesh Kumar.

Some leaders have referred to parliamentary procedures for removing a Chief Election Commissioner, while others have demanded judicial intervention or an independent examination of the SIR process.

These are political demands at the current stage. The latest controversy itself does not establish that a removal process has been initiated or that Kumar has been found guilty of wrongdoing.

What Happens Next?

The Election Commission is likely to face continued questions about its internal decision-making process and the handling of SIR.

Opposition parties may seek greater disclosure of the objections reportedly recorded by the two Election Commissioners and ask for parliamentary or judicial scrutiny.

The Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that its official decisions were taken unanimously and in accordance with legal procedures.

Further developments will depend on whether additional documents are made public, whether courts are approached over specific decisions and how the electoral-roll revision process progresses.

Key Points at a Glance

PointDetailsCECGyanesh KumarOther Election CommissionersSukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek JoshiIssueReported internal objections over electoral-roll decisionsReported objectionsAt least 14 over 10 monthsMajor issueSpecial Intensive Revision of electoral rollsOpposition responseDemands for greater scrutiny and action against CECEC responseInternal views are normal; final decisions were unanimousLegal finding against CECNone established by the reported developmentsCurrent statusPolitical and institutional controversy continues

Bottom Line

Opposition parties have sharply criticised Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi formally objected to several electoral-roll decisions on at least 14 occasions over 10 months.

CPI(M) MP John Brittas described the situation as a "one-man autocracy", while Congress, TMC, AAP, Samajwadi Party and Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders have called for greater scrutiny or action against Kumar.

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections demonstrate unilateral decision-making. It said internal notes and differing views are normal and that all official decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously by the three-member Commission.

The immediate issue is therefore not only the reported objections but also how the Election Commission documents, resolves and communicates internal deliberations while carrying out a nationwide electoral-roll revision.