Published Sep 23, 2026 | 5:22 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 23, 2026 | 5:46 PM
Chief Election Commissioner of India Gyanesh Kumar
Synopsis: The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the 2023 law governing ECI appointments, with Justice Dipankar Datta questioning whether the process ensures the independence of the body. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh called CEC Gyanesh Kumar a “hatchet man” for Amit Shah, citing alleged internal dissent. The ECI rejected the allegations, saying decisions were unanimous.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday, September 23, called Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar “an absolute disgrace” to the constitutional post he holds, following an Indian Express investigation that found key decisions related to the Election Commission’s (ECI) controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise were taken without the knowledge of, or despite objections from, Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi.
The IE report revealed that despite the CEC lacking powers to decide on matters in an individual capacity, the poll body repeatedly made decisions without the knowledge of, or sometimes against the recommendations of, the two Commissioners.
In a post on X, the Congress general secretary alleged that the CEC’s “integrity of purpose, impartiality of intent and independence of action have always been extremely dubious.”
Ramesh further alleged that the CEC functioned as a “hatchet man” for Union Home Minister Amit Shah, whom he described as the “designated executor of the PM’s wishes.” He stressed that CEC Gyanesh Kumar has “lost all administrative and moral right to continue in office.”
“What the CEC has been doing is with the full knowledge, support and, in fact, at the instigation of the PM and HM themselves. Gyaneshgate has been orchestrated by G2. Of that there can be no doubt. The CEC has lost all administrative and moral right to continue in office,” he claimed.
The CEC has proved to be an absolute disgrace to the Constitutional post he holds. His integrity of purpose, impartiality of intent and independence of action have always been extremely dubious. 73 Opposition MPs had moved an impeachment motion against him on April 24, 2026. That…
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) September 23, 2026
Jairam Ramesh also mentioned the split verdict delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday regarding the appointment process of the CEC and the Election Commissioners.
“Justice Datta has, through pointed and straightforward questions, highlighted the degree of central government control over the committee. He has rightly asked, can a PM’s nominee go against the PM? The validity of the selection committee will now be examined by a larger bench, but Justice Datta’s judgment confirms that the CEC must be free from the government’s control if it is to be effective,” Ramesh said.
Ramesh claimed that Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, who repeatedly raised the issue of alleged “vote chori” using the SIR, “stands vindicated more than ever before.”
He added that opposition MPs would move another impeachment motion against the CEC.
“73 Opposition MPs had moved an impeachment motion against him on April 24, 2026. That is still pending. Meanwhile, today he stands brutally exposed by his own two colleagues. And undoubtedly, Opposition MPs in both Houses now will be moving impeachment motions if there is a special session, since the Monsoon Session has not been prorogued for an unprecedented 43 days,” he said.
Questioning the 2023 law governing the appointment process, Justice Dipankar Datta prima facie observed that it doesn’t appear to ensure an independent selection process.
Justice Datta noted that a nominee of the prime minister in the selection committee cannot be expected to defy the PM.
“… the inclusion of a Cabinet Minister in the selection committee fails to provide the independent counterweight that a neutral selector could, and the Cabinet Minister would merely echo the voice of his leader, and consequently, the presence of the Leader of the Opposition in the selection committee becomes largely ornamental, without furthering the purpose of his inclusion,” Datta said, reported LiveLaw.
“Free and fair elections depend on a truly independent ECI. It is not enough for the ECI to be independent; it must appear to be independent,” he observed.
Also Read: Behind Bengaluru’s 24 lakh SIR notices: Old rolls, shifting homes and a scramble for documents
The ECI, in a statement on Wednesday, said written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks and balances are “standard, ongoing practices” intended to ensure transparency, legal compliance and operational rigour.
“All official orders, decisions and administrative directions issued by the Commission carry full legal sanctions and follow established statutory procedures” under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, the Commission said.
The ECI said operational queries and inputs during the draft stage are part of normal administrative practice and that suggestions made by Commissioners were intended to further improve electoral processes. It added that differing views and observations are a normal part of institutional deliberation before a final decision is taken.
“Highlighting certain specific internal notes/observations spread over the period of 10 months while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives gives only one part of the picture. In recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions, issued instructions, introduced around 40 new initiatives and undertaken many electoral reforms including the conduct of Electoral roll revision (including SIR) across the country. All these decisions are an outcome of the unanimous decisions of the full Commission in the past year,” the poll body said.
The Commission said its digital platforms, such as ECINet, operate under strict data-security protocols and that IT security checks and audit controls are standard measures used to prevent unauthorised tampering or manipulation. It also maintained that Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers exercise their statutory powers regarding voter registration and deletion under law.
Also Read: INDIA bloc writes to the Chief Justice of India highlighting concerns over SIR, conduct of elections
DMK president and former Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin also called for the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that recent revelations about the functioning of the ECI have seriously undermined the credibility of the poll panel.
In a statement, Stalin noted that the DMK, along with other opposition parties, had consistently opposed the SIR. He alleged that the exercise was being conducted in several states just months before elections, raising concerns over the deletion of voters.
Stalin said the revelations made by the IE investigation could not be dismissed as merely an internal or procedural matter.
He also questioned the filing of electoral-roll appeals against the inclusion of voters even after courts had directed that their names be added to the rolls.
“Who authorised these appeals? Who filed them?” Stalin asked, noting that the two Election Commissioners had themselves said they were kept in the dark.
The DMK president also questioned the functioning of ERONet, the ECI’s digital platform used for electoral-roll-related changes. He alleged that Electoral Registration Officers were unable to add voters who had been found eligible and claimed that the platform was under the control of a single individual.
Calling for an investigation into the functioning of the ECI, Stalin also demanded Kumar’s removal from office, an immediate halt to the SIR exercise and a “fair and thorough investigation” into the allegations.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
