Protests demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have continued in various parts of the country, including at Delhi's Jantar Mantar and in Mumbai. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held a crucial hearing on petitions challenging Kumar's appointment and seeking his interim suspension as Chief Election Commissioner, along with allegations of unilateral decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Supreme Court has not approved any changes to Form 6, used for the inclusion of names in the voter list during the SIR. The Chief Justice's remark is significant because the Election Commission of India had earlier claimed that the apex court had approved the new declaration attached to Form 6 for inclusion of names in the SIR process. The matter arose following an Indian Express report and the petitions filed on its basis, which alleged that two Election Commissioners had raised objections to around 14 important decisions related to the SIR, even though those decisions were issued in the name of the Election Commission of India.
The petitioners argue that the Chief Election Commissioner cannot single-handedly take decisions in a multi-member Election Commission. Indeed, political parties' opposition to the new declaration added to Form 6 through the amendment intensified when it emerged that Kumar had taken this decision alone, despite objections from the other Election Commissioners, who argued that changes to Form 6 could not be made without the Central Government amending the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, declined to suspend Kumar for the time being, though it did not dismiss the case. The court issued notices to the Central Government, the Election Commission, Kumar, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and other relevant officials.
The impact of this development will not be confined to the legal proceedings alone. It is directly tied to the country's politics, the credibility of its electoral institutions, and the growing distrust between the ruling party and the opposition. If questions about the Election Commission's decision-making process, the SIR, and the addition of names to the voter list persist, they could become a significant political weapon for the opposition.
The Election Commission's role in Indian democracy is far greater than that of a mere administrative body. The trust of political parties and voters in its decisions is fundamental to the fairness of elections. When disagreements arise within the Commission itself and the matter reaches the Supreme Court, its political significance naturally grows. The central question is whether the Chief Election Commissioner can unilaterally implement major electoral decisions in a multi-member body. If the court delivers a clear ruling, it will shape not only the current controversy but also the Commission's future functioning — establishing the importance of collective decision-making and how the constitutional roles of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners must be balanced.
The opposition has been raising questions for some time about the election process, voter lists, EVMs, the Election Commission's impartiality, and the autonomy of constitutional institutions. The SIR issue could give fresh impetus to this broader political campaign.
In particular, the question of adding or deleting names from the electoral rolls is directly linked to a citizen's right to vote. If the opposition succeeds in creating the perception that the process could exclude genuine voters, the issue could have a significant impact on electoral politics. But the opposition faces challenges. Mere allegations will not gain political credibility. It must prove how many genuine voters were affected, in which areas, where the process was flawed, and with what concrete evidence. If the opposition fights this battle with data and documents, its impact could be widespread.
This development could also create a common cause for opposition unity. Even parties politically opposed to each other in different states could come together on the question of the fairness of the electoral process. The opposition faces three opportunities: first, to transform the question of the Commission's fairness into a broader democratic issue; second, to present the real issues related to the SIR and the electoral rolls to the public with documents and data; and third, to unite disparate opposition parties around a common institutional cause.
If the opposition succeeds on all three fronts, this controversy could become significant political leverage in the upcoming elections, especially in states where there is already sensitivity around changes to the voter list, the registration of new voters, and the deletion of existing ones. This matters because the opposition's strategy on issues such as unemployment, inflation, the caste census, federalism, and social justice often splinters due to state-level political dynamics. The question of the Election Commission's impartiality and the voter list, by contrast, raises common concerns for almost every opposition party.
However, that unity will endure only if the opposition moves beyond demanding the removal of one individual to a broader demand for the independence and transparency of electoral institutions. If the campaign is seen as a personal political struggle against Gyanesh Kumar, its impact will be limited. Conversely, if the opposition highlights institutional reforms — the appointment process, the Commission's accountability, collective decision-making, transparency of the voter list, and judicial oversight — the debate could be far more serious and consequential.
Perhaps the biggest impact of this controversy is that the debate over the Election Commission's credibility is, in truth, a debate about the credibility of democracy itself. The inclusion of an eligible citizen's name on the voter list is not merely an administrative matter; it is tied to constitutional rights and democratic participation. The more comprehensive the revision process, the greater the need for transparency and accountability. The true test of this controversy will be whether India's electoral institutions can remain a centre of trust for all political parties. If questions about the Commission's impartiality continue to grow, they will harm not one party but the credibility of the democratic system itself. At the same time, if the judicial process brings clarity on rules and decision-making, and the Commission ensures greater transparency, this episode could end up strengthening democratic institutions.
It would therefore be inappropriate to view the current controversy as merely "Gyanesh Kumar versus the opposition." The real question is far broader: will India's electoral system remain one that both the loser and the winner can trust? The answer will play a crucial role in shaping the course of Indian politics in the years to come.
---
*With Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association
Comments