September 26, 2026

BJP MP Sambit Patra criticises opposition for alleging BJP-ECI ‘collusion’ (File photo) NEW DELHI: The ruling BJP on Saturday said that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) statement on the SIR row has “clearly established” that the decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was taken with the full consensus of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners.Also Read | SIR row: EC says final decisions unanimous, clarifies officer’s role, voter inclusion process”In the recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions including SIR across the country. The order for the SIR issued on 24.6.2025 for all the States/UTs, starting with Bihar, followed by West Bengal and 30 other States/UTs was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 27.5.2026. The schedule for SIR for 12 States and UTs was issued on 27.10.2025 and those for 19 States/UTs was issued on 14.05.2026 with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The final figure of number of electors will be known only after final publication in the remaining 12 states of Phase-III,” the poll panel’s statement read.The ECI response and Patra’s subsequent remarks came amid a political row over the SIR exercise following an Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the roll revision process.“ECI’s letter has now clearly established that the SIR was conducted with the signatures and full consensus of all three commissioners… The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the SIR… The public statement issued today by the Election Commission contains a photograph on its final page showing all three commissioners sitting together. Regarding the attacks that were being made on the Election Commission, the truth has clearly come to light today,” BJP MP Sambit Patra told news agency ANI.Patra also criticised the Congress-led opposition for alleging “collusion” between the BJP and the ECI.“Various opposition parties and the Congress Party in particular launched an aggressive attack on the Election Commission of India and the BJP. They alleged collusion between the Election Commission and the BJP, claiming that India’s democracy was being compromised. The manner in which the Congress Party has attempted to launch an attack clearly demonstrates a lack of maturity within the party, as well as a nefarious design to undermine the Constitution,” the Puri MP added.Patra further accused the Congress of repeatedly targeting constitutional and other institutions, alleging that the party had questioned the credibility of various bodies since 2014.“Looking at the history of the Congress party since 2014, there is not a single institution that the party has not attacked. No other political party in India has attacked the Indian Army. But the Congress party and some of its allied ‘satellite’ parties have indeed attacked the Indian Army.”Opposition parties, including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Shiv Sena (UBT) and Left parties, have intensified their criticism of the ECI, raising concerns over electoral transparency and demanding accountability.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesCongress units in several states, including Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur, also staged protests over the issue.The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that internal technical notes and written queries are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member body. It has also asserted that all final decisions related to the SIR process were taken unanimously and had the approval of all three commissioners.The Congress has indicated that opposition parties may move a fresh impeachment motion against CEC Kumar in Parliament. The issue is expected to come up at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29 in New Delhi.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKaran ManralKaran Manral is a journalist at the Times of India. He covers politics, social issues, and international affairs, exploring stories that affect people’s everyday lives. He also writes explainers to make these stories easier for readers to follow.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna04 mins mins
BJP MP Sambit Patra criticises opposition for alleging BJP-ECI ‘collusion’ (File photo) NEW DELHI: The ruling BJP on Saturday said that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) statement on the SIR row has “clearly established” that the decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was taken with the full consensus of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners.Also Read | SIR row: EC says final decisions unanimous, clarifies officer’s role, voter inclusion process”In the recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions including SIR across the country. The order for the SIR issued on 24.6.2025 for all the States/UTs, starting with Bihar, followed by West Bengal and 30 other States/UTs was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 27.5.2026. The schedule for SIR for 12 States and UTs was issued on 27.10.2025 and those for 19 States/UTs was issued on 14.05.2026 with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The final figure of number of electors will be known only after final publication in the remaining 12 states of Phase-III,” the poll panel’s statement read.The ECI response and Patra’s subsequent remarks came amid a political row over the SIR exercise following an Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the roll revision process.“ECI’s letter has now clearly established that the SIR was conducted with the signatures and full consensus of all three commissioners… The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the SIR… The public statement issued today by the Election Commission contains a photograph on its final page showing all three commissioners sitting together. Regarding the attacks that were being made on the Election Commission, the truth has clearly come to light today,” BJP MP Sambit Patra told news agency ANI.Patra also criticised the Congress-led opposition for alleging “collusion” between the BJP and the ECI.“Various opposition parties and the Congress Party in particular launched an aggressive attack on the Election Commission of India and the BJP. They alleged collusion between the Election Commission and the BJP, claiming that India’s democracy was being compromised. The manner in which the Congress Party has attempted to launch an attack clearly demonstrates a lack of maturity within the party, as well as a nefarious design to undermine the Constitution,” the Puri MP added.Patra further accused the Congress of repeatedly targeting constitutional and other institutions, alleging that the party had questioned the credibility of various bodies since 2014.“Looking at the history of the Congress party since 2014, there is not a single institution that the party has not attacked. No other political party in India has attacked the Indian Army. But the Congress party and some of its allied ‘satellite’ parties have indeed attacked the Indian Army.”Opposition parties, including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Shiv Sena (UBT) and Left parties, have intensified their criticism of the ECI, raising concerns over electoral transparency and demanding accountability.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesCongress units in several states, including Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur, also staged protests over the issue.The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that internal technical notes and written queries are part of the normal functioning of a multi-member body. It has also asserted that all final decisions related to the SIR process were taken unanimously and had the approval of all three commissioners.The Congress has indicated that opposition parties may move a fresh impeachment motion against CEC Kumar in Parliament. The issue is expected to come up at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29 in New Delhi.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorKaran ManralKaran Manral is a journalist at the Times of India. He covers politics, social issues, and international affairs, exploring stories that affect people’s everyday lives. He also writes explainers to make these stories easier for readers to follow.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court


'Truth has come to light': BJP after EC clarifies 'no rift' over electoral roll revision
BJP MP Sambit Patra criticises opposition for alleging BJP-ECI ‘collusion’ (File photo)

NEW DELHI: The ruling BJP on Saturday said that the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) statement on the SIR row has “clearly established” that the decision to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was taken with the full consensus of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the two election commissioners.Also Read | SIR row: EC says final decisions unanimous, clarifies officer’s role, voter inclusion process“In the recent months, the Commission has taken numerous decisions including SIR across the country. The order for the SIR issued on 24.6.2025 for all the States/UTs, starting with Bihar, followed by West Bengal and 30 other States/UTs was issued with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 27.5.2026. The schedule for SIR for 12 States and UTs was issued on 27.10.2025 and those for 19 States/UTs was issued on 14.05.2026 with the unanimous approval of the Commission. The final figure of number of electors will be known only after final publication in the remaining 12 states of Phase-III,” the poll panel’s statement read.The ECI response and Patra’s subsequent remarks came amid a political row over the SIR exercise following an Indian Express report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions and orders related to the roll revision process.“ECI’s letter has now clearly established that the SIR was conducted with the signatures and full consensus of all three commissioners… The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the SIR… The public statement issued today by the Election Commission contains a photograph on its final page showing all three commissioners sitting together. Regarding the attacks that were being made on the Election Commission, the truth has clearly come to light today,” BJP MP Sambit Patra told news agency ANI.Patra also criticised the Congress-led opposition for alleging “collusion” between the BJP and the ECI.“Various opposition parties and the Congress Party in particular launched an aggressive attack on the Election Commission of India and the BJP. They alleged collusion between the Election Commission and the BJP, claiming that India’s democracy was being compromised. The manner in which the Congress Party has attempted to launch an attack clearly demonstrates a lack of maturity within the party, as well as a nefarious design to undermine the Constitution,” the Puri MP added.Patra further accused the Congress of repeatedly targeting constitutional and other institutions, alleging that the party had questioned the credibility of various bodies since 2014.“Looking at the history of the Congress party since 2014, there is not a single institution that the party has not attacked. No other political party in India has attacked the Indian Army. But the Congress party and some of its allied ‘satellite’ parties have indeed attacked the Indian Army.”Opposition parties, including the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Shiv Sena (UBT) and Left parties, have intensified their criticism of the ECI, raising concerns over electoral transparency and demanding accountability.

Share your thoughts in the comments

Related News

NEW DELHI: Australian PM Anthony Albanese has credited PM Narendra Modi with providing energy access to India’s population on a scale that, he said, no other country has achieved before.Talking to former Australian PM Kevin Rudd on Sept 24 at an event organised by Asia Policy Institute in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, Albanese said, “To give Prime Minister Modi credit, more people have been connected with access to energy in India under his reign than has occurred in any decade in any country or any region in human history.”Under the Ujjwala scheme, over 10.5 crore domestic cooking gas connections have been provided since 2016, while the Saubhagya scheme helped electrify over 2.8 crore rural and poor urban households. The PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana, the world’s largest domestic rooftop solar initiative, has connected over 50 lakh households with solar energy. Nearly 2.5 million farmers have also benefited from the PM-KUSUM scheme, which promotes solar energy in agriculture through solar-powered irrigation systems.Albanese’s statement comes at a time when energy security is high on India’s agenda, with global supplies facing disruptions amid the ongoing war in West Asia.India diversified its energy supplies from 27 to 41 countries over the past decade to ensure energy security for its population of over 140 crore. This helped it tide over supply disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of the world’s total energy trade, amid the West Asia conflict and, more recently, disruptions in the Red Sea. India also imported LNG from Australia when supplies from Gulf nations were scarce.Albanese spoke about India’s growing economic strength and efforts to deepen bilateral ties. He said the India-Australia partnership had been “under-utilised” and that he and PM Modi were “very keen on rectifying that”.“He is someone who we have a strong relationship with. I think there’s a lot more can be done in our economic partnership,” Albanese said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesAlbanese, along with a delegation from the Business Council of Australia, is likely to visit India in Dec for the G’Day Namaste event, where bilateral trade, investment and cooperation in clean energy, education and technology are expected to be discussed.During PM Modi’s visit to Australia in July this year, the two countries issued a joint statement calling for stronger cooperation on reliable energy supplies, renewable energy, supply-chain resilience and electrification. They also agreed on Australian uranium exports to India for its nuclear energy programmes and reaffirmed cooperation on critical minerals and renewable energy.Commerce minister Piyush Goyal recently said that bilateral trade between the two countries stood at .09 billion in 2025-26.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAtul MathurAtul Mathur is a Senior Assistant Editor at The Times of India with over 27 years of experience in journalism. Based in Delhi, he has spent much of his career reporting on governance, public policy and politics, churning out researched, data-driven stories that impact daily lives. Atul is known for investigative depth and strong human-interest narratives as he strives to bring clarity and context to complex issues. He currently tracks the energy sector, writing on power, renewable energy, coal and mines.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

NEW DELHI: Australian PM Anthony Albanese has credited PM Narendra Modi with providing energy access to India’s population on a scale that, he said, no other country has achieved before.Talking to former Australian PM Kevin Rudd on Sept 24 at an event organised by Asia Policy Institute in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, Albanese said, “To give Prime Minister Modi credit, more people have been connected with access to energy in India under his reign than has occurred in any decade in any country or any region in human history.”Under the Ujjwala scheme, over 10.5 crore domestic cooking gas connections have been provided since 2016, while the Saubhagya scheme helped electrify over 2.8 crore rural and poor urban households. The PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana, the world’s largest domestic rooftop solar initiative, has connected over 50 lakh households with solar energy. Nearly 2.5 million farmers have also benefited from the PM-KUSUM scheme, which promotes solar energy in agriculture through solar-powered irrigation systems.Albanese’s statement comes at a time when energy security is high on India’s agenda, with global supplies facing disruptions amid the ongoing war in West Asia.India diversified its energy supplies from 27 to 41 countries over the past decade to ensure energy security for its population of over 140 crore. This helped it tide over supply disruptions linked to the Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of the world’s total energy trade, amid the West Asia conflict and, more recently, disruptions in the Red Sea. India also imported LNG from Australia when supplies from Gulf nations were scarce.Albanese spoke about India’s growing economic strength and efforts to deepen bilateral ties. He said the India-Australia partnership had been “under-utilised” and that he and PM Modi were “very keen on rectifying that”.“He is someone who we have a strong relationship with. I think there’s a lot more can be done in our economic partnership,” Albanese said.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesAlbanese, along with a delegation from the Business Council of Australia, is likely to visit India in Dec for the G’Day Namaste event, where bilateral trade, investment and cooperation in clean energy, education and technology are expected to be discussed.During PM Modi’s visit to Australia in July this year, the two countries issued a joint statement calling for stronger cooperation on reliable energy supplies, renewable energy, supply-chain resilience and electrification. They also agreed on Australian uranium exports to India for its nuclear energy programmes and reaffirmed cooperation on critical minerals and renewable energy.Commerce minister Piyush Goyal recently said that bilateral trade between the two countries stood at $21.09 billion in 2025-26.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorAtul MathurAtul Mathur is a Senior Assistant Editor at The Times of India with over 27 years of experience in journalism. Based in Delhi, he has spent much of his career reporting on governance, public policy and politics, churning out researched, data-driven stories that impact daily lives. Atul is known for investigative depth and strong human-interest narratives as he strives to bring clarity and context to complex issues. He currently tracks the energy sector, writing on power, renewable energy, coal and mines.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
“The CEC thinks he can hide behind ‘bureaucratise’ and protocol. He stands exposed and is now petrified,” claimed Jairam Ramesh NEW DELHI: Congress hit back at the election commission over the statement they issued amid the ongoing SIR row, claiming they’re in “damage control mode” and adding that EC didn’t deny the media report claims and gave a “wishy washy” statement which “avoids answering the questions regarding the deliberate targeting of Gen Z voters.””The Election Commission is in damage control mode after it has already caused massive damage to our democracy. It has just issued a wishy-washy Press Note that raises further questions on its intent, integrity, impartiality and credibility,” said Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh on X, while sharing his full response to the EC press note.He raised 6 points in his statement as below:First, the Press note does not directly deny the story or its findings. It makes a defensive attempt to downplay the same in paragraph 3(i) and 3(ii) but does not say that the allegations are baseless.Second, in the case of Goa, after having been caught out the ECI has sheepishly stated that Form 6 has already been filled out for inclusion by 81 of the 97 deleted voters. To put this another way, you disenfranchise voters through a broken and corrupt system, and when caught say that they are being added back.Third, it seeks to justify the Commissions actions by appealing to the Order of the Supreme Court dated May 27th, 2026. The Order which was pronounced well before the recent revelations will not save the CEC for the malicious deletion of targeted voters, for the incompetence that has resulted in citizens being wiped off the roles, for the crores lost in both expenses and man-hours due to the confusion and harassment caused to entire families.Fourth, it extends the deadlines for voter registration in Delhi and Maharashtra. But what happens to the voters of Karnataka and Telangana? What happens to the voters disenfranchised in Bihar and West Bengal? Do the voters of these and other states who were deleted due to one man’s corruption not deserve answers?Fifth, the Press Release also states the ECI will now involve experts from IIT/IIIT to review the ECINET portal and submit a report to ensure it complies with rules. Aside from being a meaningless safeguard (since the concern is not about the technical soundness but rather the centralization which prevents voter addition at ground level) this confirms the concerns attributed to the two other Election Commissioners per the reportage.Sixth, the Press Note avoids answering the questions regarding the deliberate targeting of Gen Z voters. The ECI has no answer for its targeted disenfranchisement, beginning mid-July 2026 through wholly illegal changes made to Form 6 (unseen and unapproved by Parliament) which placed an unfair burden on them to find and disclose their parents and/or grandparents’ details.Further continuing the party’s “vote chori” allegations, he added, “The revelations regarding (1) the unilateral nature of decision making by the CEC, (2) his open hatred and bias against the Opposition resulting in a clear bias, (3) his willing participation and abetment in Vote Chori by the ruling regime, (4) his specific attack to prevent the enrollment of Gen Z voters, (5) his corruption exposed ironically by his negligence in purging and pruning voter lists, needs to be answered for.”Jairam Ramesh also called for suspension of SIR and prosecution against Gyanesh Kumar, saying, “The CEC thinks he can hide behind ‘bureaucratise’ and protocol. He stands exposed and is now petrified as an entire country seeks to hold him accountable. The ongoing SIR which has turned to be method of massive disenfranchisement of several crores of India must be suspended immediately without delay. In the meantime, nothing short of the CEC’s resignation or prosecution will suffice.”Congress has took multiple jabs at EC, since the report of 2 election commissioners disagreeing amid the SIR process came out. In another development, Rahul Gandhi, questioned the EC over former kerala chief secretary Jiji Thomson claimed in a media interview that Gyanesh Kumar approached and asked him to contest on a BJP ticket, even offering a ministerial position. The LoP added to those claims, saying on X, “First, Gyanesh Kumar – then a serving IAS officer – was used to recruit for the BJP. Then Modi and Shah made him the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India’s elections.”This comes as the Election Commission (EC) issued a clarification on Saturday amid reports of differences within the poll panel over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The EC said all decisions on SIR, including the nationwide exercise, were approved unanimously by the Commission.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIt also announced measures to ease the process for voters who receive notices over unmapped names or discrepancies. BLOs will visit their homes to collect documents, while hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online.The EC said SIR has been completed in 20 states and UTs, while excluded voters and first-time voters can seek inclusion through continuous updation.The Commission also extended claim and objection deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra and said an IIT/IIIT expert would be part of a committee reviewing the ECINet system.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorTrisha MahajanTrisha Mahajan is a journalist with The Times of India digital, with keen interest in covering business and corporate affairs. She also reports on key national and world developments and global news trends. A keen reader with a strong interest in storytelling that adds context, clarity, and depth to complex issues.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

“The CEC thinks he can hide behind ‘bureaucratise’ and protocol. He stands exposed and is now petrified,” claimed Jairam Ramesh NEW DELHI: Congress hit back at the election commission over the statement they issued amid the ongoing SIR row, claiming they’re in “damage control mode” and adding that EC didn’t deny the media report claims and gave a “wishy washy” statement which “avoids answering the questions regarding the deliberate targeting of Gen Z voters.””The Election Commission is in damage control mode after it has already caused massive damage to our democracy. It has just issued a wishy-washy Press Note that raises further questions on its intent, integrity, impartiality and credibility,” said Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh on X, while sharing his full response to the EC press note.He raised 6 points in his statement as below:First, the Press note does not directly deny the story or its findings. It makes a defensive attempt to downplay the same in paragraph 3(i) and 3(ii) but does not say that the allegations are baseless.Second, in the case of Goa, after having been caught out the ECI has sheepishly stated that Form 6 has already been filled out for inclusion by 81 of the 97 deleted voters. To put this another way, you disenfranchise voters through a broken and corrupt system, and when caught say that they are being added back.Third, it seeks to justify the Commissions actions by appealing to the Order of the Supreme Court dated May 27th, 2026. The Order which was pronounced well before the recent revelations will not save the CEC for the malicious deletion of targeted voters, for the incompetence that has resulted in citizens being wiped off the roles, for the crores lost in both expenses and man-hours due to the confusion and harassment caused to entire families.Fourth, it extends the deadlines for voter registration in Delhi and Maharashtra. But what happens to the voters of Karnataka and Telangana? What happens to the voters disenfranchised in Bihar and West Bengal? Do the voters of these and other states who were deleted due to one man’s corruption not deserve answers?Fifth, the Press Release also states the ECI will now involve experts from IIT/IIIT to review the ECINET portal and submit a report to ensure it complies with rules. Aside from being a meaningless safeguard (since the concern is not about the technical soundness but rather the centralization which prevents voter addition at ground level) this confirms the concerns attributed to the two other Election Commissioners per the reportage.Sixth, the Press Note avoids answering the questions regarding the deliberate targeting of Gen Z voters. The ECI has no answer for its targeted disenfranchisement, beginning mid-July 2026 through wholly illegal changes made to Form 6 (unseen and unapproved by Parliament) which placed an unfair burden on them to find and disclose their parents and/or grandparents’ details.Further continuing the party’s “vote chori” allegations, he added, “The revelations regarding (1) the unilateral nature of decision making by the CEC, (2) his open hatred and bias against the Opposition resulting in a clear bias, (3) his willing participation and abetment in Vote Chori by the ruling regime, (4) his specific attack to prevent the enrollment of Gen Z voters, (5) his corruption exposed ironically by his negligence in purging and pruning voter lists, needs to be answered for.”Jairam Ramesh also called for suspension of SIR and prosecution against Gyanesh Kumar, saying, “The CEC thinks he can hide behind ‘bureaucratise’ and protocol. He stands exposed and is now petrified as an entire country seeks to hold him accountable. The ongoing SIR which has turned to be method of massive disenfranchisement of several crores of India must be suspended immediately without delay. In the meantime, nothing short of the CEC’s resignation or prosecution will suffice.”Congress has took multiple jabs at EC, since the report of 2 election commissioners disagreeing amid the SIR process came out. In another development, Rahul Gandhi, questioned the EC over former kerala chief secretary Jiji Thomson claimed in a media interview that Gyanesh Kumar approached and asked him to contest on a BJP ticket, even offering a ministerial position. The LoP added to those claims, saying on X, “First, Gyanesh Kumar – then a serving IAS officer – was used to recruit for the BJP. Then Modi and Shah made him the umpire and put him in charge of match-fixing India’s elections.”This comes as the Election Commission (EC) issued a clarification on Saturday amid reports of differences within the poll panel over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The EC said all decisions on SIR, including the nationwide exercise, were approved unanimously by the Commission.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIt also announced measures to ease the process for voters who receive notices over unmapped names or discrepancies. BLOs will visit their homes to collect documents, while hearings will be held only in exceptional cases, preferably online.The EC said SIR has been completed in 20 states and UTs, while excluded voters and first-time voters can seek inclusion through continuous updation.The Commission also extended claim and objection deadlines in Delhi and Maharashtra and said an IIT/IIIT expert would be part of a committee reviewing the ECINet system.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorTrisha MahajanTrisha Mahajan is a journalist with The Times of India digital, with keen interest in covering business and corporate affairs. She also reports on key national and world developments and global news trends. A keen reader with a strong interest in storytelling that adds context, clarity, and depth to complex issues.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
Angad Singh Dhillon appointed as Canada’s ambassador to the UAE BATHINDA: Hailing from Ludhiana village in Punjab, Angad Singh Dhillon has been appointed as Canada’s next ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Arab Emirates. Dhillon, whose appointment has been announced by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand on September 25, will succeed Radha Krishna Panday as Canada’s ambassador to the UAE.As per official website of global affairs Canada, Angad Singh Dhillon has only recently served as Director of Operations and Stakeholder Relations in the Office of Prime Minister Mark Carney and has previously served as Chief of Staff to two federal cabinet ministers handling the small business and transport portfolios. Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIn these roles, he supported Canada’s engagements at the G7, G20, UN General Assembly, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, International Transport Forum and Conference of the Parties.As one of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s closest advisers, he supported the Prime Minister in re-engaging Canada’s diplomatic relationships with key bilateral partners, including India and China, by helping restore high-level channels of communication and cooperation. He also led stakeholder coordination to secure incoming investment commitments into Canada, including the development and planning of Canada’s inaugural national Investment Summit.He had joined the liberal party as a field organizer in 2015. Angad Singh Dhillon family traces its roots in Ghungrana village in Ludhiana as his grandfather Jagjit Singh Ghungrana was a farmer and known figure in the area.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorNeel KamalAn engineer by training but a journalist at heart, Neel Kamal writes about sustainable agriculture, environment, climate change and peace initiatives between India and Pakistan by peace groups on both sides.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Angad Singh Dhillon appointed as Canada’s ambassador to the UAE BATHINDA: Hailing from Ludhiana village in Punjab, Angad Singh Dhillon has been appointed as Canada’s next ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Arab Emirates. Dhillon, whose appointment has been announced by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand on September 25, will succeed Radha Krishna Panday as Canada’s ambassador to the UAE.As per official website of global affairs Canada, Angad Singh Dhillon has only recently served as Director of Operations and Stakeholder Relations in the Office of Prime Minister Mark Carney and has previously served as Chief of Staff to two federal cabinet ministers handling the small business and transport portfolios. Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesIn these roles, he supported Canada’s engagements at the G7, G20, UN General Assembly, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, International Transport Forum and Conference of the Parties.As one of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s closest advisers, he supported the Prime Minister in re-engaging Canada’s diplomatic relationships with key bilateral partners, including India and China, by helping restore high-level channels of communication and cooperation. He also led stakeholder coordination to secure incoming investment commitments into Canada, including the development and planning of Canada’s inaugural national Investment Summit.He had joined the liberal party as a field organizer in 2015. Angad Singh Dhillon family traces its roots in Ghungrana village in Ludhiana as his grandfather Jagjit Singh Ghungrana was a farmer and known figure in the area.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorNeel KamalAn engineer by training but a journalist at heart, Neel Kamal writes about sustainable agriculture, environment, climate change and peace initiatives between India and Pakistan by peace groups on both sides.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0
The CEC can have a distinct role within the institution, but the law does not provide for a system in which the CEC’s view automatically prevails over the other two commissioners. NEW DELHI: Elections are, by their very nature, a contest.Political parties fight for ground, candidates wage fierce campaigns and voters ultimately decide whom to trust with their mandate.Through it all, the Election Commission is meant to stand apart and monitor the process. Its role is to frame the rules, enforce them fairly and ensure that the contest remains even-handed.Yet, in recent days, the spotlight has moved away from those fighting the election and towards the institution meant to referee it.The players are no longer the only ones under scrutiny. Increasingly, the referee itself has become the subject of the debate.A report in The Indian Express claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi repeatedly raised objections with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over decisions and communications that they said were issued without their knowledge or approval.The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the episode points to a breakdown in its functioning. It has maintained that differences of opinion are a normal part of institutional deliberation and that all final decisions of the Commission have been unanimous.That leaves a larger constitutional question at the heart of the controversy: how is India’s election watchdog actually supposed to function?Is the Chief Election Commissioner the boss of the Election Commission, or simply the first among three equals? What happens when the three commissioners disagree? And why has the law governing their appointment become a subject of such intense controversy?What triggered the latest EC controversy?On September 23, The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had, on multiple occasions, objected to decisions and communications they said were taken or issued without their prior knowledge.According to the report, the two commissioners recorded such objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months.The issues reportedly ranged from changes to electoral forms and access to the voter database to the allocation of work within the Commission and the filing of appeals involving electoral rolls.The report has since triggered a wider debate over whether the Election Commission’s three members are exercising their powers collectively, as the law envisages, or whether the CEC has acquired a greater role in practice.What did the two ECs object to?According to the Indian Express report, the concerns raised by Sandhu and Joshi covered several aspects of the Commission’s functioning.Changes to Form 6: The two commissioners reportedly objected to changes made to Form 6, the application citizens use to register as new electors, without following due process. In May, Joshi warned that the form could not be altered without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. On August 13, Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.Access to electoral roll data: The commissioners also reportedly raised concerns about whether statutory authorities responsible for maintaining electoral rolls had complete access to voter data on the ERONet portal. Joshi flagged what he described as the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and proposed an audit to establish that only authorised officials had credentials to modify voter data. Sandhu, separately, recorded that state-level election officials had complained of not having “proper and complete access” to ERONet. He also questioned whether the Commission’s director general of IT, Seema Khanna, had the legal authority to restrict access for statutory officials such as Electoral Registration Officers.Reasons for objection by the other two election commissioners over the decision taken by CEC Gyanesh KumarChanges in work allocation: Joshi and Sandhu reportedly wrote separately to the cabinet secretary objecting to changes in the allocation of work that removed a layer of oversight over the Commission’s IT infrastructure. They said the changes had been made without their knowledge.West Bengal SIR appeals: During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, the Election Commission filed around 16.10 lakh appeals involving voters whose names judicial officers had added. The appeals were heard by tribunals headed by retired high court judges appointed by the Supreme Court. According to the report, neither the two election commissioners nor West Bengal’s chief electoral officer were informed about the basis or process for filing these appeals.Restoration of voters in Goa: Another concern reportedly involved 97 eligible voters whose names had to be restored to Goa’s electoral rolls. Despite repeated requests from Electoral Registration Officers, the voters could not initially be restored because the ECI’s software did not have an option for reinstatement.Communications issued in the ECI’s name: The two commissioners also reportedly objected to communications being issued in the Election Commission’s name without what they considered to be the Commission’s full approval. They cited Article 324 of the Constitution as well as the 2023 law governing the poll panel.Taken together, the reported objections raise a question that goes beyond any individual decision: how does a three-member constitutional body exercise collective authority when its members do not initially agree?What did the Election Commission say?The Election Commission strongly rejected the suggestion that its internal differences amount to a breakdown in decision-making, and added that all official orders and administrative directions had been issued unanimously.”Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorised to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system,” the ECI said in a statement.”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 one year,” the poll body added.It also criticised the media report, saying that highlighting specific internal notes over a period of 10 months gives only one part of the picture.”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 give only one part of the picture,” it said.The Election Commission stated that internal disagreements and suggestions from officers were a routine part of its decision-making process before reaching a final verdict.The disagreement, therefore, is not simply over whether commissioners have expressed reservations. It is over what those reservations mean for the functioning of the institution as a whole.CEC or ECs: Who has the final say?This is where the 2023 law becomes important.Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, provides that the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate how its business is conducted and allocate work among the CEC and the other Election Commissioners.It also says that, as far as possible, the Commission’s business should be transacted unanimously.But it makes an important provision for situations in which consensus is not possible.The opposition objected over the 2023 EC law alleging that the panel arrangement is made to ‘favour’ the government in powerIf the CEC and the other Election Commissioners differ on a matter, the issue is to be decided according to the opinion of the majority.In other words, the statutory framework does not make the CEC an executive superior to the other two commissioners. The three constitute the Commission collectively, while the CEC is the “first among equals”.The CEC can have a distinct role within the institution, but the law does not provide for a system in which the CEC’s view automatically prevails over the other two commissioners.Where the three disagree, the majority view is the deciding view.The controversy now centres on whether some of the decisions cited in the recent report were, in practice, implemented despite objections from the other two commissioners, and if so, how that squares with the statutory scheme governing the Commission’s decision-making.Why is the 2023 EC law controversial?The current controversy also brings back an older and deeper question: Who should appoint the people who conduct India’s elections?In March 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had not yet enacted a law governing appointments to the Election Commission, despite Article 324 of the Constitution envisaging such a framework.Until Parliament enacted such a law, a Constitution bench prescribed an interim selection mechanism comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.The court stressed that an independent Election Commission was essential for democracy and observed that those entrusted with conducting elections must be insulated from executive influence.The Constitution outlines the removal guidelines for the CEC and details about the conditions of service as a CECParliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.But the new law changed the composition of the selection committee.Instead of the Chief Justice of India, it provided for a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The committee therefore consists of the Prime Minister, a Union minister nominated by him and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.The opposition has alleged that the 2023 Act gives the executive “overwhelming” control over the appointment of Election Commissioners. The government, meanwhile, has defended the law and its institutional framework.Matter in Supreme CourtThe dispute has now reached the Supreme Court, where a challenge to the validity of the appointment law produced a split verdict.A two-judge SC bench differed over whether the matter should immediately be referred to a Constitution bench. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed on that question, although both agreed that the matter should ultimately be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.Section 18 of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, outlines that the EC should ideally conduct business unanimously, but allows a majority opinion to decide matters when members disagree.They also agreed that sending the case first to a three-judge bench would be of “little worth” and could further delay a final determination of the constitutional questions involved. The matter is likely to be heard by a 5-judge bench soon.The issue is vital as it extends beyond the current dispute inside the Election Commission. It touches a larger institutional question: How independent should the body conducting India’s elections be from the executive, and what safeguards should govern the appointment of those who head it?Can a CEC actually be removed?The latest controversy has also acquired a political dimension, with opposition parties preparing fresh notices seeking the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.According to media reports, the notices, being drafted and vetted by experts, are expected to be submitted in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha next week. The proposed notices are expected to include issues raised in the Indian Express report.This would not be the opposition’s first attempt.On April 7, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairperson CP Radhakrishnan rejected an earlier notice seeking Kumar’s removal. That notice had been signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members and alleged partisanship and arbitrariness in the conduct of the SIR exercise.The CEC can be removed by the same procedure as a Supreme Court judge and requires a majority vote from both the Houses.Separately, a notice submitted by 73 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha on April 24 seeking Kumar’s removal remains pending in the Upper House.But removing a CEC is deliberately difficult.Article 324(5) of the Constitution provides that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”.The same protection is incorporated into Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act.The other Election Commissioners enjoy a different safeguard: they cannot be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.The higher threshold for removing a CEC is intended to protect the office from arbitrary or politically motivated removal.What does it take to remove a CEC?The removal process is rooted in the constitutional procedure applicable to Supreme Court judges.Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which lays down the procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge, states that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President following an address by each House of Parliament.Such an address must be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of at least two-thirds of members present and voting, in the same session, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.The process begins with a notice of motion in either House of Parliament alleging misbehaviour or incapacity. The notice must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.The presiding officer of the concerned House can admit or refuse the motion after considering the material and information available. If the motion is admitted, an inquiry is conducted into the charges by a committee constituted for the purpose.If the charges are established, the motion must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses.Once both Houses pass the motion in accordance with these requirements, an address is made to the President, who then issues the order removing the CEC.The President’s role at this stage is constitutional and formal once Parliament has passed the required address.How the EC evolvedThe current structure of the Election Commission is itself the product of an institutional evolution.When the ECI was established in 1950, it was a single-member body, with the Chief Election Commissioner as its sole member.It became a three-member body for the first time in 1989, but that arrangement was short-lived. In January 1990, the VP Singh government reverted the Commission to a single-member structure.The system changed again in October 1993, when the PV Narasimha Rao government appointed MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners alongside CEC TN Seshan.Seshan challenged the appointments in the Supreme Court, arguing that the addition of commissioners diluted the authority of the CEC.In its 1995 judgment, a Constitution bench upheld the multi-member structure.The court made clear that the CEC was not institutionally superior to the other Election Commissioners. The three were intended to function collectively, with differences being resolved through the decision-making mechanism of the Commission.That judgment established the broad institutional framework that exists today.The big pictureThe Election Commission is not designed as a hierarchy in which one person commands and two others merely assist. Nor is it simply three independent offices operating in parallel. It is a constitutional body meant to function collectively.The law provides for unanimity where possible and a majority where consensus fails.The CEC occupies the position of first among equals, rather than that of a superior authority.The significance of the current controversy, therefore, lies not merely in the existence of disagreements within the Commission. Differences are inevitable in any institution exercising such enormous constitutional responsibility.The larger question is what happens after those differences arise: whether they remain part of an internal deliberative process, as the ECI maintains, or whether they reflect a deeper dispute over how collective authority is being exercised.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe credibility of an election does not rest only on the final tally of votes.It also rests on whether voters believe that the rules were applied fairly, the institutions enforcing them remained above the contest and the process was conducted without favour or hidden influence.The Election Commission, therefore, carries a burden that goes beyond administering polls: it must command confidence across the political spectrum and among voters themselves. Any perception that the referee is divided, opaque or partisan can cast a shadow over the process, even when the electoral machinery continues to function formally within the law.In the end, public trust is not built merely by declaring an election free and fair; it is built by ensuring that voters have little reason to doubt that verdict.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorRohitashwa RanjanRohitashwa Ranjan is a digital journalist with The Times of India, where he decodes Indian politics as a carefully staged production with scripts, subtext and everything behind. His stories track elections, party dynamics and the things that often are buried beneath the headlines. When not parsing vote shares or alliances, he is usually reading between the lines, where the real story tends to reside.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

The CEC can have a distinct role within the institution, but the law does not provide for a system in which the CEC’s view automatically prevails over the other two commissioners. NEW DELHI: Elections are, by their very nature, a contest.Political parties fight for ground, candidates wage fierce campaigns and voters ultimately decide whom to trust with their mandate.Through it all, the Election Commission is meant to stand apart and monitor the process. Its role is to frame the rules, enforce them fairly and ensure that the contest remains even-handed.Yet, in recent days, the spotlight has moved away from those fighting the election and towards the institution meant to referee it.The players are no longer the only ones under scrutiny. Increasingly, the referee itself has become the subject of the debate.A report in The Indian Express claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi repeatedly raised objections with Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over decisions and communications that they said were issued without their knowledge or approval.The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the episode points to a breakdown in its functioning. It has maintained that differences of opinion are a normal part of institutional deliberation and that all final decisions of the Commission have been unanimous.That leaves a larger constitutional question at the heart of the controversy: how is India’s election watchdog actually supposed to function?Is the Chief Election Commissioner the boss of the Election Commission, or simply the first among three equals? What happens when the three commissioners disagree? And why has the law governing their appointment become a subject of such intense controversy?What triggered the latest EC controversy?On September 23, The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had, on multiple occasions, objected to decisions and communications they said were taken or issued without their prior knowledge.According to the report, the two commissioners recorded such objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months.The issues reportedly ranged from changes to electoral forms and access to the voter database to the allocation of work within the Commission and the filing of appeals involving electoral rolls.The report has since triggered a wider debate over whether the Election Commission’s three members are exercising their powers collectively, as the law envisages, or whether the CEC has acquired a greater role in practice.What did the two ECs object to?According to the Indian Express report, the concerns raised by Sandhu and Joshi covered several aspects of the Commission’s functioning.Changes to Form 6: The two commissioners reportedly objected to changes made to Form 6, the application citizens use to register as new electors, without following due process. In May, Joshi warned that the form could not be altered without an amendment to the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. On August 13, Sandhu reportedly described the change as “unauthorised and illegal” and called for its immediate removal.Access to electoral roll data: The commissioners also reportedly raised concerns about whether statutory authorities responsible for maintaining electoral rolls had complete access to voter data on the ERONet portal. Joshi flagged what he described as the “gradual centralisation of the electoral roll database” and proposed an audit to establish that only authorised officials had credentials to modify voter data. Sandhu, separately, recorded that state-level election officials had complained of not having “proper and complete access” to ERONet. He also questioned whether the Commission’s director general of IT, Seema Khanna, had the legal authority to restrict access for statutory officials such as Electoral Registration Officers.Reasons for objection by the other two election commissioners over the decision taken by CEC Gyanesh KumarChanges in work allocation: Joshi and Sandhu reportedly wrote separately to the cabinet secretary objecting to changes in the allocation of work that removed a layer of oversight over the Commission’s IT infrastructure. They said the changes had been made without their knowledge.West Bengal SIR appeals: During the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal, the Election Commission filed around 16.10 lakh appeals involving voters whose names judicial officers had added. The appeals were heard by tribunals headed by retired high court judges appointed by the Supreme Court. According to the report, neither the two election commissioners nor West Bengal’s chief electoral officer were informed about the basis or process for filing these appeals.Restoration of voters in Goa: Another concern reportedly involved 97 eligible voters whose names had to be restored to Goa’s electoral rolls. Despite repeated requests from Electoral Registration Officers, the voters could not initially be restored because the ECI’s software did not have an option for reinstatement.Communications issued in the ECI’s name: The two commissioners also reportedly objected to communications being issued in the Election Commission’s name without what they considered to be the Commission’s full approval. They cited Article 324 of the Constitution as well as the 2023 law governing the poll panel.Taken together, the reported objections raise a question that goes beyond any individual decision: how does a three-member constitutional body exercise collective authority when its members do not initially agree?What did the Election Commission say?The Election Commission strongly rejected the suggestion that its internal differences amount to a breakdown in decision-making, and added that all official orders and administrative directions had been issued unanimously.”Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution. They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken. Not only the three Commissioners, but every officer of the Commission is fully authorised to give his suggestions to the Commission for improving the electoral system,” the ECI said in a statement.”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 one year,” the poll body added.It also criticised the media report, saying that highlighting specific internal notes over a period of 10 months gives only one part of the picture.”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 give only one part of the picture,” it said.The Election Commission stated that internal disagreements and suggestions from officers were a routine part of its decision-making process before reaching a final verdict.The disagreement, therefore, is not simply over whether commissioners have expressed reservations. It is over what those reservations mean for the functioning of the institution as a whole.CEC or ECs: Who has the final say?This is where the 2023 law becomes important.Section 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, provides that the Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate how its business is conducted and allocate work among the CEC and the other Election Commissioners.It also says that, as far as possible, the Commission’s business should be transacted unanimously.But it makes an important provision for situations in which consensus is not possible.The opposition objected over the 2023 EC law alleging that the panel arrangement is made to ‘favour’ the government in powerIf the CEC and the other Election Commissioners differ on a matter, the issue is to be decided according to the opinion of the majority.In other words, the statutory framework does not make the CEC an executive superior to the other two commissioners. The three constitute the Commission collectively, while the CEC is the “first among equals”.The CEC can have a distinct role within the institution, but the law does not provide for a system in which the CEC’s view automatically prevails over the other two commissioners.Where the three disagree, the majority view is the deciding view.The controversy now centres on whether some of the decisions cited in the recent report were, in practice, implemented despite objections from the other two commissioners, and if so, how that squares with the statutory scheme governing the Commission’s decision-making.Why is the 2023 EC law controversial?The current controversy also brings back an older and deeper question: Who should appoint the people who conduct India’s elections?In March 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had not yet enacted a law governing appointments to the Election Commission, despite Article 324 of the Constitution envisaging such a framework.Until Parliament enacted such a law, a Constitution bench prescribed an interim selection mechanism comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.The court stressed that an independent Election Commission was essential for democracy and observed that those entrusted with conducting elections must be insulated from executive influence.The Constitution outlines the removal guidelines for the CEC and details about the conditions of service as a CECParliament subsequently enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.But the new law changed the composition of the selection committee.Instead of the Chief Justice of India, it provided for a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The committee therefore consists of the Prime Minister, a Union minister nominated by him and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.The opposition has alleged that the 2023 Act gives the executive “overwhelming” control over the appointment of Election Commissioners. The government, meanwhile, has defended the law and its institutional framework.Matter in Supreme CourtThe dispute has now reached the Supreme Court, where a challenge to the validity of the appointment law produced a split verdict.A two-judge SC bench differed over whether the matter should immediately be referred to a Constitution bench. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma disagreed on that question, although both agreed that the matter should ultimately be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.Section 18 of the CEC and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, outlines that the EC should ideally conduct business unanimously, but allows a majority opinion to decide matters when members disagree.They also agreed that sending the case first to a three-judge bench would be of “little worth” and could further delay a final determination of the constitutional questions involved. The matter is likely to be heard by a 5-judge bench soon.The issue is vital as it extends beyond the current dispute inside the Election Commission. It touches a larger institutional question: How independent should the body conducting India’s elections be from the executive, and what safeguards should govern the appointment of those who head it?Can a CEC actually be removed?The latest controversy has also acquired a political dimension, with opposition parties preparing fresh notices seeking the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar.According to media reports, the notices, being drafted and vetted by experts, are expected to be submitted in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha next week. The proposed notices are expected to include issues raised in the Indian Express report.This would not be the opposition’s first attempt.On April 7, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairperson CP Radhakrishnan rejected an earlier notice seeking Kumar’s removal. That notice had been signed by 130 Lok Sabha members and 63 Rajya Sabha members and alleged partisanship and arbitrariness in the conduct of the SIR exercise.The CEC can be removed by the same procedure as a Supreme Court judge and requires a majority vote from both the Houses.Separately, a notice submitted by 73 opposition MPs in the Rajya Sabha on April 24 seeking Kumar’s removal remains pending in the Upper House.But removing a CEC is deliberately difficult.Article 324(5) of the Constitution provides that the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”.The same protection is incorporated into Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act.The other Election Commissioners enjoy a different safeguard: they cannot be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.The higher threshold for removing a CEC is intended to protect the office from arbitrary or politically motivated removal.What does it take to remove a CEC?The removal process is rooted in the constitutional procedure applicable to Supreme Court judges.Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which lays down the procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge, states that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President following an address by each House of Parliament.Such an address must be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of at least two-thirds of members present and voting, in the same session, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.The process begins with a notice of motion in either House of Parliament alleging misbehaviour or incapacity. The notice must be signed by at least 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.The presiding officer of the concerned House can admit or refuse the motion after considering the material and information available. If the motion is admitted, an inquiry is conducted into the charges by a committee constituted for the purpose.If the charges are established, the motion must be passed by a majority of the total membership of each House and by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses.Once both Houses pass the motion in accordance with these requirements, an address is made to the President, who then issues the order removing the CEC.The President’s role at this stage is constitutional and formal once Parliament has passed the required address.How the EC evolvedThe current structure of the Election Commission is itself the product of an institutional evolution.When the ECI was established in 1950, it was a single-member body, with the Chief Election Commissioner as its sole member.It became a three-member body for the first time in 1989, but that arrangement was short-lived. In January 1990, the VP Singh government reverted the Commission to a single-member structure.The system changed again in October 1993, when the PV Narasimha Rao government appointed MS Gill and GVG Krishnamurthy as Election Commissioners alongside CEC TN Seshan.Seshan challenged the appointments in the Supreme Court, arguing that the addition of commissioners diluted the authority of the CEC.In its 1995 judgment, a Constitution bench upheld the multi-member structure.The court made clear that the CEC was not institutionally superior to the other Election Commissioners. The three were intended to function collectively, with differences being resolved through the decision-making mechanism of the Commission.That judgment established the broad institutional framework that exists today.The big pictureThe Election Commission is not designed as a hierarchy in which one person commands and two others merely assist. Nor is it simply three independent offices operating in parallel. It is a constitutional body meant to function collectively.The law provides for unanimity where possible and a majority where consensus fails.The CEC occupies the position of first among equals, rather than that of a superior authority.The significance of the current controversy, therefore, lies not merely in the existence of disagreements within the Commission. Differences are inevitable in any institution exercising such enormous constitutional responsibility.The larger question is what happens after those differences arise: whether they remain part of an internal deliberative process, as the ECI maintains, or whether they reflect a deeper dispute over how collective authority is being exercised.Join conversationView All Comments →Share your thoughts in the commentsInsightfulAgreeDisagreeSkepticalConcerningPromisingWorth ReadingBig DevelopmentPost CommentBe respectful · TOI community guidelinesThe credibility of an election does not rest only on the final tally of votes.It also rests on whether voters believe that the rules were applied fairly, the institutions enforcing them remained above the contest and the process was conducted without favour or hidden influence.The Election Commission, therefore, carries a burden that goes beyond administering polls: it must command confidence across the political spectrum and among voters themselves. Any perception that the referee is divided, opaque or partisan can cast a shadow over the process, even when the electoral machinery continues to function formally within the law.In the end, public trust is not built merely by declaring an election free and fair; it is built by ensuring that voters have little reason to doubt that verdict.Get the latest India News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.About the AuthorRohitashwa RanjanRohitashwa Ranjan is a digital journalist with The Times of India, where he decodes Indian politics as a carefully staged production with scripts, subtext and everything behind. His stories track elections, party dynamics and the things that often are buried beneath the headlines. When not parsing vote shares or alliances, he is usually reading between the lines, where the real story tends to reside.Read MoreEnd of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosDelhi Skeleton Mystery: Skeleton-Like Structure Found During BJP Cleanliness Drive | Watch‘Padma Bhushan Is Small, Make Him PM’: Pawan Khera Mocks BJP’s Praise For Gyanesh KumarSkyStriker, HIMARS, Apache: India, US Showcase Firepower At Yudh Abhyas 2026 | WatchTibet Govt-in-Exile Reprimands Activist Sonam Wangchuk, Calls Comparison ‘Misplaced and Inaccurate’India’s Savage ‘Osama’ Reply To Pak PM’s UN Bluster; ‘Repeating Lies Won’t Make It True’‘A Terrorist Country Asking Me That Question’: Jaishankar’s Sharp Reply To Pak Journalist At UN’SIR’ Under Fire? IIT-Bombay, Election Commission Face Accountability Questions | PrasangMassive Protest Erupts At Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Against Gyanesh Kumar Over EC-SIR RowUAPA ‘Missing’: What Allowed VanDyke, 6 Ukrainians To Leave India? The Legal Gap Explained‘Made In UP’ Missiles Giving Pakistan Sleepless Nights: Amit Shah On BrahMos123Hot PicksMandeep K BhandariBank strikeNEET PG ResultGold Rate TodayOctober 2026 School HolidaysOdisha school textbooksPunjab school holidayMadurantakam bypollDr MonishCBSE Date SheetTop TrendingNorma DumontRahul GandhiPowerball JackpotDelhi Hit and RunUP EncounterDonald TrumpPM ModiNaomi OsakaJoe ThomasSupreme Court

Vamsikrishna 0