New Delhi [India], September 29 (ANI): Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of acting at the behest of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), as the Supreme Court agreed to hear next week a petition challenging the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and alleging that powers vested in the multi-member constitutional body were being exercised without the required collective decision-making process.
Speaking at the Congress Working Committee (CWC) meeting in New Delhi, Kharge alleged that the Narendra Modi government had systematically weakened India’s democratic institutions over the past 12 years.
“The Modi government has systematically and conspiratorially hollowed out the strong democratic foundation that our forefathers built through their sacrifices and dedication over the last 12 years,” Kharge said.
“Names are being removed from voter lists through calculated conspiracies, and the Chief Election Commissioner has become a puppet of the Modi government. This runs counter to the ethos and spirit of Indian democracy, which mandates that every eligible citizen’s vote be secure and every vote be counted impartially,” he alleged.
Citing Dr BR Ambedkar’s remarks during the Constituent Assembly debates on June 15, 1949, Kharge said universal franchise was a fundamental element of democracy and that no eligible voter should be excluded from the electoral rolls because of the prejudice of an official or the discretion of an officer.
Kharge alleged that electoral-roll deletions were being carried out arbitrarily at the behest of the BJP and the Modi government. He said Ambedkar and former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru understood that democratic participation was essential to ensuring that the voices of poor and marginalised citizens were heard.
“During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb Ambedkar described the right to vote as the most fundamental element of democracy. But today, the opposite is happening,” Kharge said.
He questioned the functioning of the Election Commission and raised concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
“Our questions are not intended to weaken these institutions; we want the Election Commission to be so strong and credible that both the ruling party and the opposition have equal trust in its decisions. The independence of the Election Commission is one of the first conditions for the security of democracy,” Kharge said.
He questioned who authorised the SIR process and why, according to the Congress, two Election Commissioners were allegedly excluded from an internal portal.
Kharge also outlined five demands from the Congress: publication of complete data concerning major changes to voter lists; full information and an opportunity to appeal for voters whose names have been removed; timely provision of electoral-roll data and related information to political parties in a usable format; independent and time-bound investigations wherever serious discrepancies are found; and greater transparency in election-related data and decisions.
He said the demands were particularly important ahead of Assembly elections scheduled in five states in 2027, arguing that every eligible citizen’s voting rights must be protected and public confidence in the electoral process maintained.
The Congress has intensified its criticism of the Election Commission following reports of differences within the poll panel over the SIR process. The party and other opposition parties are expected to discuss a joint strategy on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week a petition challenging the manner in which the ECI is functioning.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for early listing. The petition, filed under Article 32 by Bihar-based petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, alleges that powers vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member constitutional body were being exercised without following the collective decision-making mechanism prescribed by law.
The plea contends that the Chief Election Commissioner, as chairman of the Commission, cannot individually exercise powers vested under Article 324 in the Election Commission as a whole. It relies on the Supreme Court’s 1995 Constitution Bench judgment in TN Seshan v. Union of India, which recognised the substantive decision-making role of Election Commissioners in a multi-member Commission.
The petition also relies on Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which provides that the Commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously and, where members differ, decided by majority.
The petitioner cited at least 14 contemporaneous objections allegedly recorded by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi between October 2025 and August 2026.
According to the petition, the objections include allegations that communications were issued in the name of the ECI without Commission approval, agendas and minutes of meetings were not circulated for more than a year, and changes were made to electoral-roll systems without the participation or approval of the other two Commissioners.
A major issue raised in the petition concerns changes to Form 6 during the SIR of electoral rolls. Commissioner Vivek Joshi allegedly objected that the form could not be modified to require SIR-related disclosures without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The objection was subsequently endorsed by Sandhu, according to the petition.
The disputed field was nevertheless introduced in July 2026, after which Sandhu allegedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal.”
The petition also raises concerns about the alleged centralisation of the electoral-roll database and access to ERONet and ECINet by statutory field-level authorities. According to the plea, Joshi proposed an independent audit of database access credentials, while Sandhu questioned the authority of the ECI’s Director General (IT) to restrict access available to statutory electoral officers.
Another issue concerns appeals filed in the name of the ECI before West Bengal Appellate Tribunals against voters whose inclusion had been directed by judicial officers. The petition states that Sandhu questioned who had authorised the appeals and under what authority.
The petitioner has sought examination of the Commission’s primary records, including agendas, minutes, approval sheets, file notings, work-allocation orders and IT-access records. The plea itself states that the allegations should not be treated as conclusively establishing illegality solely on the basis of media reports, arguing that the relevant records should be examined to determine whether the disputed actions were authorised under Article 324 and Section 18.
Among the interim reliefs sought are preservation of electoral-roll data and audit trails, restrictions on further substantive alterations to Form 6 and protection against irreversible changes to electoral-roll data pending adjudication.
The petitioner has also sought an interim direction restraining Gyanesh Kumar from exercising the functions of Chief Election Commissioner and requiring the Commission’s business to be conducted by the other two Commissioners.
The main prayer seeks a declaration that powers under Article 324 must be exercised by the ECI as a multi-member body in accordance with Section 18, and that communications, orders, directions or appeals cannot be issued in the name of the Commission without a unanimous decision or, where necessary, a majority decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision to list the matter next week comes amid an intensifying political dispute over the functioning of the Election Commission, electoral-roll revisions and the decision-making process within the poll panel. The allegations contained in the petition remain subject to judicial examination. (ANI)
1,185 words, 6 minutes read time.
About The Author
