Opposition Intensifies Its Challenge to Gyanesh Kumar: Could Elections Held During His Tenure Also Face Scrutiny?

From demands for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation to calls for cancelling certain elections, political tensions escalate as questions over voter lists, the SIR exercise and the Election Commission’s impartiality take centre stage nationally.

(SDNA) Special Political Analysis | New Delhi

The political confrontation over electoral transparency and the accountability of democratic institutions in India is gaining momentum. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major target of criticism from the opposition INDIA bloc. What began as a dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and allegations of vote theft has now expanded to include demands for his resignation, action against him, restoration of allegedly deleted voter names and fresh elections in certain constituencies.

The developments have raised a significant question in national politics: Is the opposition seeking changes in the Election Commission’s existing functioning, or is it preparing to challenge the electoral mandates delivered during Gyanesh Kumar’s tenure? Is the campaign primarily about ensuring free and fair elections, or does it also form part of a broader political strategy?

A review of recent opposition statements, political resolutions and public demonstrations indicates that the controversy has moved well beyond a disagreement over a single decision or administrative process.

SIR Exercise Under Opposition Fire; Demand for CEC’s Resignation Gains Momentum

The central issue behind the opposition’s protest is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition parties allege that a large number of voters were removed from the electoral lists during the exercise, raising concerns about the voting rights of eligible citizens.

Leaders from the Congress and other INDIA bloc parties have described the alleged irregularities in voter lists as a serious matter and questioned the Election Commission’s role. They maintain that any revision of electoral rolls must be conducted transparently, fairly and in accordance with established procedures.

On September 29, 2026, the Congress Working Committee adopted a political resolution targeting the Chief Election Commissioner and the Central Government. The resolution called for suspension of the SIR exercise, restoration of the 13.3 crore names allegedly removed from voter lists and an independent investigation into the matter.

According to the opposition, irregularities in electoral rolls could directly affect democratic rights. These allegations have consequently intensified questions about Gyanesh Kumar’s role and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Demand for Fresh Elections Takes the Controversy Beyond Voter Lists

One of the most significant developments in the political dispute has been the demand to conduct fresh elections in places where the opposition has questioned the fairness of the electoral process.

On September 23, 2026, Congress leader Kapil Sibal and other opposition leaders raised serious concerns about the Election Commission’s functioning. During this phase, demands also emerged for cancelling elections held over the previous three years and restoring the voter list that existed three years earlier.

Later, during a meeting with the President on October 9, an opposition delegation reportedly sought cancellation of assembly elections held over the previous two years in cases where, according to the opposition, decisive evidence of alleged vote theft was available.

However, it is important to distinguish between individual political demands and a formally adopted common position. The opposition has not presented one uniform and final official demand to cancel every election held during Gyanesh Kumar’s entire tenure without distinction. The scope of demands has varied across leaders and political platforms.

Nevertheless, the opposition’s campaign appears to have expanded in scope. Its objections are no longer confined to reviewing electoral rolls; the results and mandates of elections allegedly affected by irregularities are also being brought under scrutiny.

19 Opposition Parties Unite in Protest; Symbolic Impeachment Adds to Pressure

On October 31, 2026, representatives of 19 opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc organised a symbolic public impeachment-style protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at the residence of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

During the event, the opposition adopted a resolution alleging that the electoral process had been influenced and that the SIR exercise had involved manipulation of voter lists. The parties also demanded Kumar’s immediate resignation and legal action against him.

It is important to clarify that this was not a formal constitutional impeachment proceeding. It was a symbolic political protest organised by opposition parties to register their objections.

The following day, on November 1, the INDIA bloc held a major rally at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi reiterated the demand for action against the Chief Election Commissioner and called for his removal from office.

Opposition leaders presented the campaign as a movement to protect democracy, safeguard electoral fairness and defend citizens’ voting rights.

Election Commission Rejects Allegations in Its Affidavit Before the Supreme Court

Amid mounting criticism, the Election Commission has also placed its position on record. In a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on October 26, 2026, the Commission rejected allegations that the Chief Election Commissioner had taken unilateral decisions.

According to the Commission, the three major orders relating to the SIR exercise, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were approved unanimously by all three members of the Commission.

The Commission maintained that the decisions were collective institutional decisions and should not be characterised as the personal decisions of a single official.

Responding to questions concerning Form 6, the Commission stated that no formal amendment had been made to the form. However, the manner in which an additional declaration appeared during the online application process could have created the impression that the form had been modified. The Commission also stated that the online presentation was changed from October 21.

Another point made by the Election Commission is that the addition or deletion of a voter’s name from the electoral roll requires an order from the concerned Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

Thus, while opposition parties continue to question the Commission’s impartiality and decision-making process, the Commission maintains that its decisions were collective, rule-based and consistent with institutional procedures.

Supreme Court Proceedings: Attention Turns to November 17 Hearing

The dispute over the SIR exercise and the functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner has now entered the judicial arena.

On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Election Commission and other concerned parties on petitions challenging the conduct of the Chief Election Commissioner and the legality of the SIR process.

The petitioners have raised demands including a declaration that the SIR exercise is illegal, an examination of the alleged unilateral decisions and safeguards to ensure collective decision-making within the Election Commission.

On October 27, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing until after the Diwali vacation. November 17, 2026, has been set as the date for the next hearing.

So far, the court has not issued any final order cancelling elections or directing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner. The outcome will depend on the judicial proceedings and examination of the evidence placed before the court.

What Does the Constitution Say About Removing the Chief Election Commissioner?

An important dimension of the controversy concerns the constitutional safeguards provided to the office of the Chief Election Commissioner.

Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India, the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through the same procedure and on the same grounds applicable to the removal of a Supreme Court judge.

This means that political opposition, public demonstrations or statements in Parliament cannot, by themselves, lead to the immediate removal of the Chief Election Commissioner. The prescribed constitutional procedure must be followed.

The Election Commission has also referred to this constitutional provision in its response before the Supreme Court and questioned the validity of the demand to prevent the Chief Election Commissioner from performing his duties.

Therefore, the political demand for resignation and the constitutional process for removal from office must be understood as two separate matters.

Three Major Political Dimensions of the Opposition’s Campaign

A broader assessment of the developments brings three key dimensions of the opposition’s campaign into focus.

1. Building Political Pressure: Making the demand for the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation and action against him a national political issue, thereby increasing pressure on the Government and the Election Commission.

2. Seeking Judicial Examination: Bringing the legality of the SIR exercise, alleged irregularities in voter lists and the Election Commission’s decision-making process under judicial scrutiny.

3. Challenging Electoral Mandates: Seeking to challenge the results of elections in which the opposition claims to have evidence of alleged vote theft, and demanding fresh elections where applicable.

However, the truth of these allegations and the legal validity of electoral outcomes can only be determined through examination by competent constitutional authorities and the judiciary, not through political statements alone.

Public Confidence in the Election Commission: A Test for Democracy

The strength of Indian democracy lies not merely in holding regular elections, but also in maintaining citizens’ confidence in the electoral process. The Election Commission is expected to discharge its constitutional responsibilities impartially, treating both the ruling establishment and the opposition fairly.

Where allegations of irregularities in voter lists arise, a transparent and impartial investigation becomes essential. Questions about decisions taken by the Election Commission should be answered through facts, records and official documentation. At the same time, serious allegations made by opposition parties must also be examined against evidence and judicial scrutiny.

The INDIA bloc’s campaign against Gyanesh Kumar has now moved beyond the demand for his resignation. The controversy has expanded to include the institutional credibility of the Election Commission, the legality of the SIR exercise, voters’ rights and the legitimacy of electoral mandates delivered in previous elections.

Attention is now focused on the proposed November 17, 2026, Supreme Court hearing and the Election Commission’s subsequent steps. The proceedings may help establish how much substance the allegations carry and whether the controversy leads to wider institutional reforms in India’s electoral system.

Ultimately, this debate is not confined to the position of one Chief Election Commissioner. It concerns every citizen’s right to vote, the fairness of elections and the credibility of the people’s mandate in the world’s largest democracy.

— The Truth Behind the News, Sachcha Dost News Network (SDNA)