CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Students Rage & SC Fired

Oct 06, 2026 - By Ashutosh Roy PoliticsEducationNational NewsSociety

CEC Gyanesh Kumar Is Going Through a Tough Phase

CEC Gyanesh Kumar is going through a difficult phase, and this time the trouble is not coming only from Opposition parties. Some of the most uncomfortable questions are coming from inside the Election Commission itself. For months, the Commission appeared to be functioning without any major public challenge to the way important decisions were being taken.

That changed after a detailed investigation by The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on 14 occasions over roughly 10 months.

Those objections reportedly involved the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), additions and deletions from the electoral roll, Form 6 and the internal functioning of the Election Commission. Two Commissioners disagreeing with the CEC is not, by itself, extraordinary. Constitutional institutions can have disagreements. What matters here is what happened after those objections were raised. Were they properly considered? Were the reasons recorded? And when decisions could affect the voting rights of millions of citizens, was the process transparent enough? The Indian Express investigation has brought that internal dispute into the public domain.

Knowledge Mart had already looked at the issue from a different angle in “Arrest Gyanesh Kumar? EC Power War Explodes!”. The question there was whether the reported differences represented a genuine constitutional concern or were being converted into a political demand for action against the CEC. The latest developments make that debate harder to ignore because the matter is no longer confined to political speeches. It has entered a much more serious legal and institutional territory.

The Controversy Around Gyanesh Kumar Started Earlier

The problems surrounding Gyanesh Kumar did not begin with the 14 objections. His appointment itself came at a time when there was already criticism over the way Election Commissioners were selected. The government changed the selection law and removed the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister chosen by the Prime Minister. The Opposition strongly objected, arguing that the new arrangement gave the government greater influence over the appointment of the people who would later supervise elections.

The government defended the change. The Opposition, however, failed to turn the issue into a united political campaign strong enough to create sustained pressure. For a while, the controversy remained largely within Parliament, political meetings and court proceedings. The Election Commission carried on with its work.

That changed once questions about the Commission’s internal decision-making started coming out.

This is what makes the Indian Express report politically uncomfortable. An Opposition party accusing the CEC of favouring the government can easily be dismissed as partisan criticism. When two other Election Commissioners themselves raise repeated objections over decisions taken within the same institution, the matter becomes much harder to brush aside.

Former president of Bar Council, Dushyant Dave, in an interview with Karan Thapar, has gone to the extent of saying that the Election Commission has lied.

Why the September 26 ECI Statement Became a Problem

On September 26, the Election Commission issued a statement showing the three Commissioners together and stressing the unity of the institution. The timing mattered. Reports about differences between Gyanesh Kumar, Sandhu and Joshi had already created political noise, and the Commission clearly wanted to project a united house. It also stressed that the proper procedures would be followed.

If the procedures had always been followed in the same way, why was there suddenly so much emphasis on following them “from now on“?

A statement meant to show unity therefore gave critics something else to discuss. Did it suggest that there had been differences over procedure earlier? Was the Commission simply restating an existing rule, or was it responding to the concerns that had emerged about its internal functioning?

The ECI has maintained that its formal decisions were unanimous, and that position cannot simply be ignored. But unanimity at the final stage does not automatically explain why two Commissioners had repeatedly recorded objections before those decisions were reached. The September statement therefore failed to put the matter completely to rest. In fact, it opened another line of questioning.

Form 6 Has Created an Even Bigger Problem

The most uncomfortable issue now concerns Form 6, the statutory form used by people seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. The controversy became particularly serious after the Election Commission’s September 26 statement said that the declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR had been upheld by the Supreme Court.

On October 5, that claim came under scrutiny in the Supreme Court. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant made it clear that the Court had not approved any modified version of Form 6 and wanted to know who had authorised the change. The Indian Express report on the Supreme Court hearing explains why the issue has suddenly become so important.

The uncomfortable part is obvious. The ECI publicly referred to Supreme Court approval, while the Chief Justice later said that no such approval had been given. So who authorised the change, and under what legal authority? That is one of the central questions the Election Commission now faces.

It is equally important not to go further than the evidence allows. The Supreme Court has not delivered a final judgment establishing wrongdoing by the CEC. Comments made during a hearing are not the same as a final judicial finding, and a strong observation in court does not automatically become the final position in a written judgment. Supporters of Gyanesh Kumar can therefore point to the absence of any final adverse order against him.

But that does not make the Form 6 controversy disappear. The Supreme Court is now examining the wider questions surrounding the Election Commission’s decision-making, while the Commission has been asked to respond to the allegations. The Court has not, at this stage, passed an interim order suspending Gyanesh Kumar. The legal process will therefore have to run its course, and the evidence will matter more than the political slogans surrounding the case.

There is also a genuine legal disagreement over whether the Election Commission can make changes to Form 6 on its own. Former Uttarakhand High Court judge Justice L P Singh argues that the EC has the authority to do so. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sidharth Luthra takes the other view and questions whether the Commission can rely on its residual powers for this purpose.

Their disagreement makes one thing clear: the legal position is not as straightforward as the political arguments sometimes suggest. Watch the Rajdeep Sardesai discussion with Justice LP Singh and Sidharth Luthra to hear both sides of the argument.

Perhaps the most valuable comment has come from the Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan Lokur, “EC is not above the Constitution“.

Why the Objections of Sandhu and Joshi Matter

The reported objections of Sandhu and Joshi deserve public attention because the Election Commission is a three-member constitutional body. If the two other Commissioners believed that important decisions were being taken without their proper participation, voters have a legitimate interest in knowing what they objected to, how the CEC responded and how the final decisions were reached.

That does not mean every disagreement inside the Commission should be treated as misconduct. Differences of opinion are possible in any institution, including constitutional bodies. The ECI has also maintained that its formal decisions were ultimately unanimous. So the real concern is not whether Commissioners are allowed to disagree. Of course they are. The concern is whether those disagreements were handled properly and whether the process remained transparent and consistent with the law.

That is why the earlier Knowledge Mart analysis of the CJP demand for the CEC’s resignation is still relevant. Demands for resignation or arrest are political positions, not legal findings. At the same time, the institutional questions behind those demands cannot simply be waved away because they are being raised by political opponents.

Judges and Former Judges Have Also Raised Serious Concerns

The debate over the SIR voter list has now moved well beyond political parties. Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman has criticised the manner in which the electoral-roll revision has been handled. Sitting Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has also used particularly strong language while discussing disenfranchisement.

Justice Bhuyan compared disenfranchisement to taking the soul out of the body. Speaking at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, where he had earlier served as Chancellor, the sitting Supreme Court judge underlined the seriousness of removing eligible citizens from the electoral roll.

What may look like an administrative change on paper can have a far more serious consequence when a citizen is suddenly left out of the electoral process.

Still, Justice Bhuyan’s remarks should not be presented as a final ruling on the SIR dispute. The legal position will ultimately depend on the Court’s orders.

Judges are not insulated from the society around them. They read the same reports, hear the same political arguments and listen to lawyers from opposing sides. The public debate inevitably forms part of the atmosphere in which these cases are heard.

But judicial restraint matters too. Former CJI B R Gavai has criticised Justice Bhuyan’s public remarks as judicial impropriety while the matter remains before the Court. That disagreement shows just how sensitive the issue has become. The judiciary has to protect its own independence and discipline. The Election Commission, meanwhile, has to protect its credibility.

The Young Protesters Are Adding a New Dimension

The controversy is no longer limited to established Opposition parties and familiar political rallies. A section of young protesters is confronting the authorities more directly, and some of the scenes have been striking. During protests against the Election Commission, young activists, including people associated with AISA, confronted police personnel and demanded answers instead of simply remaining behind barricades.

One incident involved a protester reportedly running away with the key to a police bus. There were also allegations of molestation raised in front of news cameras during the protests. Those allegations cannot become established facts merely because they were made publicly. They require proper investigation. The same standard should apply to the conduct of protesters. Challenging authority may be politically powerful, but a political cause does not automatically make every action lawful.

Still, there is a larger change worth watching. Young protesters are increasingly recording their interactions with the police, putting the footage online and confronting authorities without waiting for a traditional political organisation to lead them. That makes this kind of mobilisation different from the familiar Congress-versus-BJP or TMC-versus-BJP political contest.

Listen to AISA national president, Neha Bora’s comment of Detention.

CJP Has Taken the Gyanesh Kumar Fight to the Streets

The emergence of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has added another unusual element to the controversy. CJP organised a major rally at Shivaji Park in Mumbai on October 2, demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The event attracted public figures and entertainers and drew attention partly because it looked nothing like a conventional political rally.

CJP has built its campaign around satire, social media and direct confrontation with established institutions. People may agree with that approach or reject it, but writing off such movements as politically irrelevant would be too easy. Their appeal seems to lie in a form of political mobilisation that does not depend heavily on traditional party machinery and can move quickly from online campaigns to street protests.

Knowledge Mart had earlier reported on the wider campaign in “CJP Demands CEC Resignation on SIR: Big Risk”. What is interesting now is that the campaign is no longer confined to one party or one state. CEC Gyanesh Kumar has become one of the faces of a much wider argument over electoral accountability.

The Real Problem Is Accountability

For me, this is where the controversy becomes much bigger than Gyanesh Kumar. India does not suffer from a shortage of elections. We conduct elections regularly and run one of the world’s largest electoral systems. The harder question is what happens between elections, when ordinary citizens want answers from people and institutions that hold enormous power.

Who holds a minister accountable when a major decision appears questionable? What happens when an elected representative changes political parties after winning on another party’s symbol? And when citizens believe a constitutional authority has taken an important decision without enough transparency, where do they go for an answer?

These are not theoretical questions. Politicians have switched sides for decades whenever political equations changed. The recent controversy over Koyel Mallick joining the BJP after being nominated for a Rajya Sabha seat has brought the issue of party-hopping back into focus. The bigger question is simple: when voters support a candidate under one party’s identity, how much responsibility does that representative carry towards those voters after changing sides?

The Election Commission should face the same standard. Its constitutional powers are enormous, but those powers do not create public trust automatically. Trust has to be maintained through transparent procedures, proper collective decision-making and credible answers when difficult questions arise.

Why the Youth Factor Could Worry Modi and Shah

The growing anger among young people could eventually become a bigger political concern for the Modi-Shah leadership than the immediate controversy is for Gyanesh Kumar. Established political parties know how to fight one another. BJP knows the language of Congress, TMC, AAP and SP, while those parties have spent years learning how to campaign against BJP. Rallies, press conferences, television debates and party machinery are familiar territory for all of them.

The younger generation can operate differently. A video can go viral within hours. Political satire can reach millions without a party office behind it. An online campaign can suddenly turn into a street protest.

Recent youth-led movements in neighbouring Bangladesh and Nepal have shown how quickly anger among young people can become politically significant. India’s circumstances are obviously different, and there is no reason to assume that the same pattern will be repeated here.

But governments should still pay attention. Young citizens who lose faith in established institutions do not necessarily join the established Opposition. They may create their own language, their own networks and their own ways of protesting. That is much harder for traditional political parties to control.

What About the Allegations Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar?

There are also allegations circulating that CEC Gyanesh Kumar is favouring the central government because he wants to protect his daughter and son-in-law. I do not know whether there is any truth in that allegation.

Still, the fact that such allegations are circulating says something about the level of distrust surrounding the Election Commission. When people have complete confidence in an institution, they are less likely to invent elaborate theories about hidden motives behind its decisions. Here, the atmosphere has become so suspicious that controversial decisions are being interpreted politically almost immediately.

As people say in Hindi, “dal mein kuch kala hai”. Something does not appear entirely right. That phrase is not evidence of wrongdoing, and it should not be treated as one. But it captures the public mood. The Commission’s job, therefore, is not simply to reject every criticism. It needs to provide enough information and transparency for citizens to examine the facts themselves.

CEC Gyanesh Kumar Now Has to Answer the Bigger Question

The immediate issue is not whether CEC Gyanesh Kumar will resign or whether the Opposition can force him out. The bigger concern is whether the Election Commission can restore public confidence while its internal functioning, voter-roll revision process and relationship with the other Commissioners are all being questioned.

The reported 14 objections need an explanation. The Commission needs to make clear how important decisions were reached. The Form 6 controversy requires a straightforward account of who authorised the changes and under what authority. The courts, meanwhile, will decide the legal questions that are actually before them.

The controversy should not be reduced to two easy slogans — “Arrest Gyanesh Kumar” on one side and “everything is fine” on the other. Both avoid the harder work of establishing what actually happened. The Opposition has every right to demand accountability.

The Election Commission has every right to defend its decisions. But neither a political speech nor an official statement can establish criminal wrongdoing. That requires evidence, documents and legal scrutiny. If the allegations against the Commission are correct, the evidence should show it and those responsible should face accountability. If they do not stand up to scrutiny, that should become clear too.

The Election Commission is not the property of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, the government, the Opposition or any political party. Its constitutional responsibility is to the electoral process and, ultimately, to the citizens whose votes give that process meaning.

That is why this controversy is bigger than one Chief Election Commissioner. Citizens are asking whether decisions inside the Commission are genuinely collective, whether eligible voters can be left out because of administrative or technical problems, and whether a powerful constitutional institution can be questioned when something goes wrong.

Those questions cannot be settled by another photograph of the Commissioners sitting together. The records, the law, the courts and the Commission’s own conduct will provide the answer.

What the CEC Gyanesh Kumar Controversy Really Means

1. CEC Gyanesh Kumar is facing growing scrutiny after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi raised objections on 14 occasions over roughly 10 months.
2. The controversy goes beyond political criticism because the reported disagreements raise questions about collective decision-making inside the Election Commission.
3. The September 26 ECI statement stressed institutional unity and future adherence to procedures, but that also raised questions about how those procedures had been followed earlier.
4. Form 6 has become a major issue after the Election Commission referred to Supreme Court approval for changes that the Chief Justice later said the Court had not approved.
5. The Supreme Court’s questions about who authorised the Form 6 changes have given the Gyanesh Kumar controversy a serious legal dimension.
6. Former and sitting judges have raised concerns about the consequences of disenfranchisement, although judicial observations must not be confused with final judgments.
7. The protests show that the controversy is moving beyond traditional Opposition parties, with young activists increasingly confronting police, government authorities and established political institutions.
8. The CJP campaign has introduced a different political style built around satire, social media and street mobilisation, reflecting frustration among people who do not necessarily identify with conventional political parties.
9. The larger issue is accountability in Indian democracy. The demand for answers from the Election Commission should be judged by the same principle that applies to ministers, elected representatives and politicians who change parties.
10. The immediate challenge for CEC Gyanesh Kumar is restoring public confidence through transparency, clear explanations and proper institutional procedures rather than relying only on statements defending the Commission.