Published Oct 05, 2026 | 10:16 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 05, 2026 | 10:25 PM
Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Synopsis: In a historic ‘People’s Impeachment Notice’ invoking Article 324(5), a coalition of former senior civil servants and prominent activists has formally charged Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar with “proved misbehaviour”. The indictment demands his immediate resignation over the mass deletion of voters, illegal form modifications, and the systemic bypass of fellow Election Commissioners.
Prominent activists and former bureaucrats have issued a “charge sheet” and a “letter of impeachment” against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar amid allegations of manipulation of electoral rolls and other irregularities surrounding the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI.)
The letter, dated October 5 (Monday) and described as a ‘Chargesheet and Notice of Impeachment ,’ was shared by the activists on their social media handles. The signatories include well-known former civil servants and activists, including former Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi Najeeb Jung, former Union home secretary G.K. Pillai, former Intelligence Bureau special director Yashovardhan Azad, former secretary to the Union government Amitabha Pandey and activists Yogendra Yadav, Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri and Aishe Ghosh.
The letter stated that Kumar had “grievously failed” to uphold the responsibilities of his office as CEC and listed six charges against him that, it said, could warrant his impeachment under Article 324(5). They demanded the CEC’s resignation to “avoid any further disgrace.”
Addressing a press conference, activist Anjali Bhardwaj claimed that a delegation of former bureaucrats and activists was stopped by the Delhi Police when they went to the Election Commission office to personally deliver the letter on Monday.
Bhardwaj alleged that the former bureaucrats were stopped by the police despite there being no signs of protest or violent confrontation and the delegation having informed the ECI of its visit by email.
Here is the charge sheet and notice of impeachment which the delegation wanted to serve on CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The Delhi Police turned Delhi into a fortress and barricaded every possible route towards the ECI to stop the delegation. Why is the ECI so afraid of meeting former civil servants? Clear that the govt is protecting the illegal actions of CEC Gyanesh Kumar because if a real investigation is done, both the CEC & the govt will stand exposed. #ImpeachGyanesh
— Anjali Bhardwaj (@AnjaliB_) October 5, 2026
“The Delhi Police turned Delhi into a fortress and barricaded every possible route towards the ECI to stop the delegation. Why is the ECI so afraid of meeting former civil servants? Clear that the govt is protecting the illegal actions of CEC Gyanesh Kumar because if a real investigation is done, both the CEC & the govt will stand exposed,” she wrote in a post on X.
Also Read: SC didn’t approve modified Form 6: Chief Justice of India discredits Election Commission’s claim
The letter levels grave allegations against Gyanesh Kumar, describing him as no longer fit to hold the position of CEC and guilty of “reckless disregard of the foundational principle of universal adult franchise” through the mass deletion of voters using the SIR exercise.
The letter starts by pointing out the CEC’s appointment under the 2023 law, calling it a “subversion” of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court to protect the independence of the poll body.
“The Election Commission of India bears an exceptional responsibility in our constitutional democracy. It is the custodian of the people’s franchise and the impartial referee on whom the credibility of elections ultimately rests. The office of Chief Election Commissioner, once occupied by public servants of the standing of Shri Sukuzar Sen, has therefore acquired a stature far beyond that of an ordinary public office. Every incumbent of this office inherits that legacy and carries an onerous duty to preserve it. You have grievously failed that responsibility,” the letter read.
“We cannot but recall that your appointment was made by subverting the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court for ensuring the independence of the Election Commission. Instead of strengthening credibility of the Commission in these challenging times for Indian democracy, your conduct has brought the institution to a point where its constitutional authority and public confidence stand eroded. We therefore ask you to resign and avoid any further disgrace. Otherwise, We, the People of India, are compelled to serve upon you this Notice of Impeachment and demand your removal from office,” it said.
The former civil servants and activists then list out six charges against the CEC, including mass deletion of voters, changes to Form 6 and centralisation of power.
Referring to the investigative report by Indian Express, the letter alleged a systematic subversion of collective decision-making within the ECI and accused the CEC of abusing his constitutional authority.
“You have repeatedly exercised powers vested in the Election Commission of India without placing matters before the Commission for proper consideration and decision. The Special Intensive Revision (SIR), among other major decisions, was undertaken without adequate discussion, deliberation, consultation, rule-making or recorded proceedings. Two Election Commissioners are reported to have recorded objections to decisions taken without their knowledge, to meetings held in the absence of agenda and minutes. The Commission’s latest declaration that agendas would henceforth be circulated and minutes maintained, provides compelling evidence of a grave departure from the statutory and constitutional requirement that the Commission function as a collective body. Decisions taken in the name of the Commission without being placed before it constitute a fundamental abuse of constitutional authority.”
The letter also targeted the “unauthorised and illegal” alteration of the Form 6 and accused the CEC of forcing citizens to make false declarations to correct the mistake committed by the ECI.
“You authorised and continued the use of a modified Form 6 for electoral-roll revision despite objections within the Commission that the alteration was ‘unauthorised and illegal’. The subsequent restoration of the original Form 6 constitutes powerful evidence that the earlier procedure lacked lawful authority. More gravely, the Commission requires citizens whose names had existed on electoral rolls but were wrongfully excluded, to lie in order to regain their voting rights. Under the original Form 6 they are expected to declare that they are applying for inclusion for the first time. They are additionally required to sign a declaration warning of criminal punishment for false statements. You are guilty for forcing crores of citizens to make a false declaration to correct an error for which the electoral authorities themselves were responsible,” the letter said.
The third charge against the CEC focused on the centralisation of electoral roll administration through the ECINET.
“You authorised the deployment of ECINET in a manner that either undermined or displaced the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers, who are the authorities legally entrusted with additions, deletions and corrections in electoral rolls. The system was introduced despite objections concerning its legality and functioning. The subsequent decision to constitute an expert committee to double check whether ECINET complies with the governing Acts and Rules amounts to an extraordinary admission that a system already used to delete crores of names on the electoral rolls had not been adequately established to be legally compliant. You thereby designed or oversaw a technological mechanism to override statutory authority, despite being put on notice.”
Also Read: SIR: Telangana CEO orders action over bulk Form 7 filings, Congress seeks SIT probe
Coming down heavily on the CEC over the mass deletion of voters through the SIR exercise, the letter also described the scale of disenfranchisement as “unprecedented in the history of electoral democracies.”
“You conceived and implemented SIR on an unprecedented scale without adequate preparation, consultation, rules, training or effective mechanisms for speedy correction of wrongful exclusions. By shifting the onus of voter registration on the citizens and by reversing the presumption of citizenship, the SIR damaged the established mechanism for ensuring universal franchise… We have already recorded 13.3 crore deletions in the pre-SIR rolls, unprecedented in the history of electoral democracies. By the time this exercise is over, the gap between adult population and the electorate would be 15 crores or more, suggesting the largest-ever ‘missing voters’ in human history,” it said.
“The resulting deletions have disproportionately affected vulnerable citizens, especially the women, the poor, migrants, minorities and the elderly. The scale of potential disenfranchisement was neither an unforeseeable accident nor an incidental consequence: it was a foreseeable consequence of the manner in which the exercise was designed and executed. You stand guilty of reckless disregard of the foundational principle of universal adult franchise,” it added.
The activists also accused Kumar of being openly biased towards a political party and therefore unfit to hold the position as CEC.
“You have repeatedly conducted yourself in a manner that creates a reasonable and substantial apprehension of political partisanship, thereby violating the constitutional expectation that the Election Commission must function without fear or favour. Your public interventions directed against opposition political leaders, your combative political rhetoric, and the cumulative pattern of decisions and actions surrounding SIR have seriously compromised the appearance and reality of institutional neutrality. You can no longer be a referee in a game where you are widely perceived to be aligned with a player,” the letter said.
“The foregoing acts cannot be viewed as isolated administrative lapses. Taken together, they constitute a sustained pattern in which the constitutional authority entrusted to protect the people’s electoral sovereignty has been used in a manner that disregards legality, collegial decision-making, impartiality and the statutory rights of electors. The result has been large-scale disenfranchisement, erosion of public confidence and the weakening of the Election Commission’s institutional independence. By these acts and omissions, you have forfeited the moral and constitutional authority to continue as Chief Election Commissioner of India,” it said.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
