Gyanesh Kumar is a retired 1988-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer from the Kerala cadre who currently serves as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of India.
Prior to his appointment to the Election Commission, he held key administrative roles in the Central Government, including Secretary in the Ministry of Cooperation and Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, and Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Key Controversies Surrounding Gyanesh Kumar
1. Internal Rift and Unilateral Decision-Making Allegations
Reports detailing significant internal friction within the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI) revealed that the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally raised objections at least 14 times in 10 months.
Lack of Consultation: The Commissioners alleged that critical decisions were taken unilaterally without prior notice, full disclosure, or consensus.
Bypassing Oversight: Concerns were raised regarding changes to work allocations that reduced multi-member oversight, particularly regarding the IT architecture and databases governing voter rolls.
Alteration of Form 6: A major point of internal disagreement was an unauthorized question added to Form 6 (used for new voter registration) on the ECINet portal, which requested historical voter list data—a move labeled by fellow commissioners as unauthorized.
2. Controversies Over Special Intensive Revision (SIR) & Large-Scale Voter Deletions
During the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the ECI under his leadership faced intense political and public backlash:
Millions of voter names were removed or flagged across various states during verification exercises, triggering accusations of targeted voter suppression.
The centralisation and security access of voter roll databases drew severe criticism from opposition parties and civil rights groups.
3. Allegations of Bias and Political Opposition Response
Opposition Backlash: The opposition alliance (INDIA bloc) accused the ECI of lacking transparency, failing to adequately address complaints regarding voter list manipulation, and exhibiting institutional bias toward the ruling government.
Calls for Action: Opposition leaders publicly raised demands for investigations into the ECI's decision-making process, with some discussions floating a potential motion of impeachment or resignation demands.
4. Selection Process under the 2023 EC Act
Kumar's appointment as an Election Commissioner in March 2024 and subsequent elevation as CEC in February 2025 were the first under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023. Critics and opposition parties argued that the selection panel structure—which replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister—diluted the independent selection process of election guardians.
The discussion surrounding Gyanesh Kumar focuses on the structural and procedural disputes within the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Key Verified Facts
Official Position & Background:
He is a retired 1988-batch IAS officer from the Kerala cadre.
He was appointed as Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) under the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
The Indian Express Investigative Expose:
An investigative report revealed that the two other Election Commissioners—Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi—formally recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months.
The written dissents flagged that critical decisions regarding voter roll modifications and system updates were issued without full multi-member consultation or prior consensus.
Unilateral Alteration of Form 6:
An unauthorized addition was made to Form 6 (the voter registration application) on the ECINet digital portal.
The new fields requested historical ancestral registration data tied to previous Special Intensive Revision (SIR) rolls.
Commissioner Sandhu formally recorded this change as "unauthorized and illegal" on the grounds that modifying statutory forms requires a formal amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
Centralization of Database Control:
The revision process transferred key IT operations and database access control to centralized ECI headquarters, restricting access for state and constituency-level electoral officers. Both commissioners separately raised concerns with the Cabinet Secretary regarding changes to work allocation that reduced internal oversight.
Supreme Court Petition Filed:
A petition was submitted to the Supreme Court seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe and a forensic audit of the ECINet and ERONet databases.
The plea requests prosecution under Section 32 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, arguing that arbitrary manipulation of voter data falls outside the scope of official immunity.
Official ECI Clarification:
The ECI officially released a statement asserting that internal notes and differing views are standard parts of institutional deliberations.
The panel maintained that all final statutory decisions regarding the SIR were taken unanimously as required by law. 
Unverified Claims, Rumors & Allegations
Mass Targeted Deletions ("Vote Chori"):
Opposition parties have alleged that millions of voters from specific demographics and political strongholds were systematically purged during the SIR exercise.
Status: Unproven / Politically Alleged. While bulk removals occurred as part of roll updating, no court or independent agency has verified that these deletions were politically targeted or malicious.
Collusion and Bias towards the Ruling Party:
Claims suggest that internal database modifications were intentionally implemented to manipulate voter lists in favor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Status: Unsubstantiated. The ECI firmly denies any partisan bias, and internal dissents centered on statutory compliance and procedural transparency rather than explicit political coordination.
Complete Breakdown of the Commission:
Social media claims allege that the Election Commission has functionally collapsed and that the other two commissioners refused to work with the CEC.
Status: False. While formal written dissents were recorded regarding specific administrative steps, both commissioners continue to serve, and official panel decisions remain operational.
No comments:
Post a Comment