New Delhi | September 24, 2026 (SDNA)
Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has intensified his criticism of the Election Commission of India amid the ongoing controversy over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Thursday, Gandhi alleged irregularities in the electoral process and called for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to step down.
His remarks came a day after an Indian Express investigation reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on multiple occasions over decisions connected with electoral-roll revision and related procedures. The Election Commission has said that differences of view are part of institutional decision-making and maintained that its decisions were ultimately unanimous.
Gandhi Links SIR Debate to Anti-Incumbency
A significant part of Gandhi’s press conference focused on the phenomenon of anti-incumbency in Indian politics. He referred to states including Haryana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat while questioning why the pattern of governments facing electoral fatigue appeared, in his view, to have changed in recent years.
Gandhi cited the example of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, arguing that even leaders who enjoy considerable popularity can eventually face strong anti-incumbency pressures. He questioned why he believes a similar political dynamic has not been visible in the case of the BJP and its leadership.
‘Votes Are the Foundation of the Constitution’
Gandhi argued that the credibility of elected governments and legislatures ultimately rests on the integrity of the voting process. He said the Election Commission has a constitutional responsibility to protect the electoral process and voter lists.
He connected the issue of voting rights with the broader constitutional structure, arguing that votes determine the composition of Parliament, Parliament makes laws, and institutions function within that legal and constitutional framework.
Sharp Attack on the CEC
Gandhi accused the Election Commission of failing to adequately address concerns that he has previously raised regarding electoral rolls and elections. He reiterated his long-standing allegation of “vote theft” and argued that questions surrounding the electoral process cannot be dismissed as merely political disagreements.
He also referred to the reported objections raised by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi, using the developments to renew his demand for Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The Indian Express has reported that the two commissioners objected on record at least 14 times over a period of 10 months on various issues linked to the poll panel’s functioning.
‘Vote Theft, Law and Institutions’
Gandhi presented what he described as a chain connecting electoral integrity with the functioning of democratic institutions. According to his argument, if the legitimacy of the vote is compromised, questions would subsequently arise about the legitimacy of the representatives elected through that process and the laws enacted by Parliament.
These are Gandhi’s political assertions; they have not been established as findings that invalidate the 2024 Lok Sabha election or subsequent elections. The Election Commission has defended its decision-making process and said that the reported differences among commissioners did not alter the final decisions of the three-member body.
Opposition Also Demands Action
The controversy has triggered criticism from several opposition parties. The Indian Express reported that opposition leaders have called for Kumar’s removal, a court-monitored investigation into the Election Commission’s functioning and a halt to the SIR exercise.
The dispute has also reached the parliamentary and legal arena, with opposition lawmakers pursuing action against the CEC while the Supreme Court is already dealing with aspects of the contested electoral-roll revision process.
Election Commission Maintains Its Position
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that internal differences automatically indicate institutional dysfunction. In its response to the reported objections, the poll panel described differing views as part of the decision-making process and maintained that its final decisions were unanimous.
The controversy therefore remains centred on two competing claims: the Opposition’s allegations that the electoral-roll revision and related decisions raise serious questions about electoral integrity, and the Election Commission’s position that its decisions were taken through the established institutional process.
As the debate continues, the SIR exercise, the reported internal objections within the Election Commission and the demand for accountability from the CEC are likely to remain major political and constitutional issues.