Do you want India to remain a democracy? If the answer is yes, then you must understand what Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), and his bosses are doing in the so-called Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls.
Simply put: They are violating the law.
Here is a detailed breakdown of the illegalities being committed and why we must act now to save our democracy.
1. The Illegality of a Nationwide SIR
As per Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950, a special revision is to be undertaken only in special cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and only in any constituency or *part* of a constituency. An order for an intensive revision for the whole country is illegal. An exception allowed for special cases cannot become the general rule. The Supreme Court order upholding this general SIR was wrong. Furthermore, who actually took the decision for a nationwide SIR? Was it the full Commission, or only Gyanesh Kumar acting alone?
2. Using Deleted Rolls Before Appeals Were Disposed Of
Section 21 of the RP Act provides that when a revision is taken up, the electoral roll in force at the time of the notification shall continue in effect until the revision is complete. A revised roll only becomes complete after all appeals filed against inclusions or deletions are disposed of. Where appeals were still pending, the original, valid electoral roll was supposed to be used. Contrary to this, the new roll with deletions was used during elections even though appeals were still pending. This is illegal.
3. Bypassing the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO)
Section 22 of the RP Act mandates that only the ERO—not anyone else—can remove a voter's name, and only on specific grounds (Section 22 a, b, and c). This can only happen after a specific enquiry, giving the person a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and only after appeals are disposed of. Gyanesh Kumar removed the names of all voters listed by the EROs after 2003 without any basis, without any enquiry, and without issuing a show-cause notice. This was blatantly illegal.
4. Inverting the Burden of Proof
Persons whose names were removed summarily were forced to apply as fresh voters in Form 6 and provide evidence of their eligibility. This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer and Others [(1995) 3 SCC 100]. The Court held that the enquiry authority or the objector—not the voter—must bring forth material evidence to back a claim of disqualification. The established jurisprudence is that the burden of proof lies on the institution seeking to inflict a disability. Gyanesh Kumar has illegally inverted this burden.
Weaponizing Forms: Blocking the Youth and Disenfranchising Millions
- The Form 6 Controversy
Gyanesh Kumar added a new appendix to Form 6, which he was not authorized to do, as Form 6 is mandated by statutory rules. He added this against the views of the two other Election Commissioners. Since the majority was against it, the addition violated the Commission's own decision-making rules. Why was it added, and on whose orders?
This new appendix asks applicants to state the serial number in the 2003 voter list where their parents' names appear. Where can an ordinary 18-year-old in 2026 access a 2003 roll? This effectively stopped the registration of all young voters—a demographic the BJP knows is unlikely to vote for them.
- The Form 7 Controversy
Objections to the inclusion of voters' names via Form 7 were filed in bulk. Who filed them? How were these forms accepted and acted upon when the signatories never appeared? In Bengal, the names of 1.6 million (16 lakh) voters, found valid by the EROs, were not registered because the EC seemingly filed appeals against them. On what grounds? Two Election Commissioners have stated they did not authorize this. If the Commission didn't authorize it, did Gyanesh Kumar do it alone? These people were illegally prevented from voting.
The Cruel Reality: How the Poor and Migrants are Being Erased
Up until now, the mission of the Government and the EC was to enroll all eligible voters to deepen democracy. This is the first time in our history that the mission is to disenfranchise people.
A ridiculous criterion called "logical discrepancy" was introduced. The officials in the Election Commission under Gyanesh Kumar seem entirely disconnected from how the poor live in India. The poor do not give birth in hospitals; they do not have birth certificates; they do not have calendars in their homes. When BLOs approached them to enroll, they gave estimated years of birth.
The EC decreed that any age difference of less than 15 years between a father and child is a "logical discrepancy" justifying exclusion. These names were excluded without enquiry, violating Section 21 of the Act.
The Disproportionate Impact on the Vulnerable
The largest number of exclusions are the poor, the underprivileged, and those without a voice. Mostly migrant laborers earning their daily bread in faraway states, they cannot afford to take a month off to go home and sort out their registration. If they don't work, they go hungry. They cannot navigate complicated forms or produce birth certificates. Why should they sacrifice their daily wages for a vote?
Meanwhile, illegal immigrants remain unaffected. The first thing they do upon entering India is get their documentation made (Aadhaar, ration cards) with the help of their support systems. It is the poor Indian citizens who have been disenfranchised. The EC either failed to understand this, or worse, wanted it this way.
Centralization of Power: A Dangerous Precedent
Gyanesh Kumar created a centralized digital electoral roll, empowering it to refuse names based on "logical discrepancy." Millions have been excluded in the name of this discrepancy.
By law, the only authority designated to add or delete names and publish rolls is the ERO. By centralizing the roll and the revision process, the law was violated. Two Election Commissioners pointed out that the EROs, DEOs, and CEOs were not even allowed to access the voter list. In Goa, for instance, 97 electors were found valid by the ERO, but they still cannot add their names to the roll.
This centralization is dangerous. It can be used to surgically cut voters from booths that vote against the NDA. Deleting voters' names before verification is a heinous offence, and Gyanesh Kumar is guilty of it.
The Political Impact and the Road Ahead
So far, 13 crore (130 million) names have been deleted by the SIR. This is 13% of the voters, and the SIR isn't even over. The margin of difference between the NDA and the INDIA bloc in the 2024 elections was only 3%. Therefore, these deletions have had, and will have, a material and devastating impact on elections. The press note issued after the Commission meeting on September 26th only confirms these illegalities.
Did Gyanesh Kumar commit all these illegalities on his own, or was he directed by his bosses?
The Opposition says they will impeach Gyanesh Kumar. That is an exercise in futility; they simply do not have the numbers. If they want a real remedy, they should file criminal cases against him.
The Way Forward:
1. All opposition parties must unite and declare they will not participate in any election until the CEC and Election Commissioners resign.
2. The selection of their successors must revert to the previous neutral system: a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a sitting Supreme Court Judge.
3. Elections held in states while the appeals of lakhs of voters were pending must be set aside, and fresh elections must be ordered.
4. The new polls must be held by **ballot paper, not EVMs**. No electronic system is immune to hacking, which is why no economically or digitally advanced country uses them.
A Warning to the Supreme Court
If we want to preserve our democracy, the whole country must be made aware and united.
Finally, the reputation of the Supreme Court has been besmirched by its judgment on the SIR. It is at par in infamy with the judgment upholding the Emergency. The Hon’ble Judges may please note.
Furthermore, the procrastination on challenging the law regarding the selection of Election Commissioners is sending a terrible message. It is an open and shut case that Election Commissioners should not be selected by the party in power, but by a neutral committee to ensure their absolute neutrality.
Let us unite to save our democracy.
---
*IAS (Retd.), Former Union Home Secretary
Comments