SIR Row: Opposition Seeks CEC's Removal, Supreme Court Scrutiny of Election Commission

Opposition Steps Up Attack on CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The Opposition has intensified its criticism of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar following reports that two Election Commissioners had repeatedly raised objections over aspects of the Election Commission's functioning and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The political reaction comes after an investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had placed objections on record at least 14 times over a period of 10 months. The objections reportedly covered electoral-roll management, voter additions and deletions, appeals and changes to voter-registration procedures.

Opposition leaders have used the report to demand Kumar's removal and greater scrutiny of the Election Commission.

What Triggered the Latest Controversy?

The immediate trigger was the report about differences within the three-member Election Commission.

According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi objected to several decisions and orders that they said were taken without their knowledge or against their recommendations. The reported objections included issues connected with the addition and deletion of voters and the administration of electoral-roll databases.

The report has raised questions among Opposition parties about how decisions concerning SIR and electoral rolls were being taken.

The Election Commission, however, has rejected the suggestion that the reported differences demonstrate a breakdown in its functioning.

What Did the Election Commissioners Reportedly Object To?

The reported objections covered several aspects of electoral administration.

Among the issues highlighted were changes to Form 6, which is used for voter registration, management of the ERONet voter database, deletion and restoration of names and procedures concerning appeals against electoral-roll decisions.

The investigation also reported that the two commissioners had raised concerns about certain decisions being taken without their knowledge.

These reported objections are the basis of the current political controversy. They do not, by themselves, constitute a judicial finding that the Election Commission acted unlawfully.

Opposition Demands Removal of the CEC

Several Opposition leaders have called for action against Gyanesh Kumar.

Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray demanded the CEC's removal and went further by calling for his arrest. He also demanded an investigation into the functioning of the Election Commission and questioned decisions connected with recent electoral processes.

Other Opposition leaders have similarly argued that the reported objections warrant institutional scrutiny.

These are political demands and have not resulted in a court order removing the CEC.

Congress Calls for Supreme Court Scrutiny

Senior Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan has called for the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the reported issues and examine the Election Commission's functioning.

Chavan also appealed to Opposition parties to initiate proceedings seeking the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner.

The demand for Supreme Court scrutiny reflects the Opposition's argument that questions concerning electoral-roll management and the functioning of the constitutional poll body require independent examination.

Whether the Supreme Court takes up such a matter remains a separate legal question.

Election Commission Defends Its Functioning

The Election Commission has rejected suggestions that the reported internal objections demonstrate that its decisions were improperly taken.

The poll panel said differences during internal deliberations are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member constitutional institution. It also maintained that decisions concerning SIR and other electoral matters were approved by the full Commission.

This is the ECI's stated position in response to the political controversy.

The disagreement therefore involves competing interpretations of the reported internal correspondence and the decision-making process.

What Is the Special Intensive Revision?

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an exercise to review and update electoral rolls.

The process has involved verification of existing electors and examination of entries that may require correction, deletion or further confirmation.

The exercise began in Bihar in June 2025 and subsequently expanded to other states and Union territories. An Indian Express investigation reported that more than 13 crore names had been struck off draft rolls across 30 states and Union territories, although draft-roll changes should not automatically be treated as final permanent deletions.

The Election Commission has maintained that the exercise is intended to identify ineligible, duplicate and otherwise invalid entries while retaining eligible voters.

Why SIR Has Become Politically Contentious

Opposition parties have repeatedly questioned the scale and methodology of SIR.

Their concerns have focused on the possibility that genuine voters could face difficulties if their records do not match older electoral rolls or if they are unable to provide information required during the verification process.

The Election Commission has defended the exercise as necessary for maintaining accurate electoral rolls.

The latest controversy is different in one important respect: it concerns reported disagreements within the Commission itself about some decisions associated with electoral-roll management.

Maharashtra Example Adds to the Debate

Uddhav Thackeray has linked the current controversy to the SIR process in Maharashtra.

The draft SIR roll published in Maharashtra on August 31 left out around 2.07 crore names from the previous electoral roll. The Election Commission stressed that this figure should not be interpreted as the final number of voters permanently deleted.

An analysis cited by The Indian Express also identified discrepancies involving relatives' details and electors who could not be linked to relatives in earlier rolls.

These figures have become part of the political debate over the scale and methodology of SIR.

West Bengal and Other States Also in Focus

West Bengal has been another major point of contention in the SIR debate.

According to reports, millions of voter entries were removed or placed under scrutiny during the revision process, while a large number of affected voters subsequently filed appeals.

The Election Commission has attributed deletions to categories including deceased voters, shifted voters, duplicate entries and other discrepancies. The appeals process has been used to challenge decisions affecting individual voters.

The scale of the appeals has also led to questions about the speed and transparency of the review process.

Supreme Court Has Already Examined SIR Procedures

The Supreme Court has separately been examining aspects of the SIR process.

On September 22, the court raised concerns about notices issued to voters in Delhi and observed that some appeared to have been issued almost mechanically. The court also suggested allowing voters to respond through modern communication methods such as WhatsApp and email.

This judicial scrutiny is separate from the latest Opposition demand for broader examination of the Election Commission's functioning.

Earlier Attempt to Remove the CEC

The latest demands also follow an earlier Opposition effort to seek Gyanesh Kumar's removal.

According to reports, an Opposition notice seeking the CEC's removal was rejected in April by Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla.

The notice had alleged partisan and discriminatory conduct and other concerns relating to electoral processes. Those allegations were political charges made in the removal attempt and were not, by themselves, judicial findings.

What Is the Legal Process for Removing the CEC?

The Chief Election Commissioner enjoys constitutional protection from removal except through a process broadly comparable to that applicable to a Supreme Court judge.

A removal motion therefore involves Parliament and requires the prescribed constitutional and statutory procedure.

Opposition demands for removal do not themselves remove the CEC from office.

The current political debate could nevertheless lead to renewed discussion in Parliament about the functioning of the Election Commission.

What Does the ECI's 'Unanimous' Position Mean?

The Election Commission has said that its decisions, including those related to SIR, were approved unanimously.

This position is significant because the reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi raise questions about how internal disagreements were handled before final decisions were taken.

The ECI's response is that differences in internal deliberations are normal and that the Commission's final decisions were collectively approved.

The precise significance of the reported objections will depend on the underlying documents and any subsequent institutional or judicial examination.

Key Points at a Glance

IssueCurrent PositionChief Election CommissionerGyanesh KumarCommissioners who reportedly raised objectionsSukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek JoshiReported objectionsAt least 14 over 10 monthsMain area of disputeElectoral-roll management and SIR-related decisionsOpposition demandCEC removal and investigationSupreme Court demandScrutiny of ECI functioningECI positionInternal differences are normal; final decisions were unanimousSIRSpecial Intensive Revision of electoral rollsLatest judicial developmentSC scrutiny of Delhi SIR noticesFinal finding against CECNone established by the reported developments

Why the Controversy Matters

The Election Commission has a central role in maintaining electoral rolls and conducting elections.

The current controversy therefore has two separate dimensions.

The first concerns the substance of SIR — how voter lists are verified, corrected and updated.

The second concerns the internal functioning of the constitutional body responsible for that process.

If the reported objections are substantiated through the underlying records, they could raise questions about decision-making procedures. Conversely, the ECI's position is that internal differences are part of institutional deliberation and that final decisions were collectively approved.

What Happens Next?

The immediate political focus is likely to remain on the reported objections by the two Election Commissioners and the documents underlying them.

Opposition parties are expected to continue demanding action against the CEC and greater scrutiny of the Election Commission.

At the same time, the ECI is defending its decision-making process and the broader SIR exercise.

The Supreme Court's ongoing consideration of SIR-related petitions could provide further judicial scrutiny of specific aspects of electoral-roll revision, while any formal process seeking removal of the CEC would have to follow the constitutional procedure.

Bottom Line

Opposition parties have stepped up demands for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and greater scrutiny of the Election Commission after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections multiple times over decisions linked to electoral-roll management and SIR.

Opposition leaders including Uddhav Thackeray and Prithviraj Chavan have called for action against the CEC and urged greater judicial or institutional examination.

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported disagreements undermine its functioning, saying differences during deliberations are normal and that SIR decisions were approved by the full Commission.

The controversy is therefore still developing. The reported internal objections, the Opposition's demands and the ECI's response are now likely to face further political, institutional and potentially judicial scrutiny.