Rahul Gandhi Questions CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s Legal Immunity, Targets PM Modi

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday questioned the legal protection available to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was using the poll panel chief to “steal elections”.

In a post on X, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha wrote: “Q. Why is CEC Gyanesh Kumar the only Indian with lifelong blanket legal immunity? A. Because PM Modi uses him to steal elections.”

Gandhi’s remarks come amid a political row over the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions concerning electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). The row has also put Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, under scrutiny.

What does Section 16 say about CEC protection?

Section 16 of the 2023 Act says that no court shall entertain or continue civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for an act, thing or word committed, done or spoken while, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty or function.

The provision applies to a person who is or was the CEC or an Election Commissioner, but its protection is tied to conduct connected with the discharge, or purported discharge, of official functions.

Gandhi’s description of the provision as “lifelong blanket legal immunity” is his political characterisation and is not the wording of the law.

The provision has come under renewed scrutiny as Opposition parties have demanded Kumar’s removal and questioned whether the law could bar courts from entertaining proceedings over alleged wrongdoing by Election Commissioners.

Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has also criticised the protection available under Section 16. The New Indian Express reported on September 26 that she called for the safeguards to be removed, arguing that officials accused of illegal acts should be held accountable.

The issue has also reached the Supreme Court. A petition challenges Kumar’s functioning and alleges that decisions concerning the electoral process were taken without the concurrence of the other two commissioners. The court is set to hear the challenge next week.

The allegations made in the petition have not been established by the court.

Why is Gyanesh Kumar facing Opposition criticism?

The controversy intensified after details emerged of repeated objections by Sandhu and Joshi to decisions concerning electoral rolls and the SIR.

The objections covered decisions relating to the enrolment of new voters, deletion and restoration of names, electoral-roll procedures and access to voter databases. The two commissioners said some decisions had been taken without their knowledge or approval.

One dispute concerned Form 6, used for enrolment of new voters. The Indian Express reported that an additional SIR-related declaration had been added to the online form, prompting objections from Sandhu and Joshi over the legal authority for making the change.

The ECI has rejected the suggestion that the objections reflected a breakdown in the functioning of the Commission. It has maintained that decisions, including those relating to the SIR, were taken with the concurrence of all three commissioners.

Separately, the Commission on Wednesday reversed a recent modification to Form 6 on the ECINET portal, four days after it was introduced. The modification had removed a self-declaration of Indian citizenship from the form and had been termed “illegal” by Sandhu and Joshi.

The New Indian Express also reported on the Commission’s response to the concerns raised by Sandhu and Joshi, including decisions concerning Form 6, electoral-roll databases and oversight of the ECI’s information-technology systems.

The developments have added to Opposition criticism of the SIR, which involves a large-scale revision of electoral rolls. The Indian Express reported that more than 13 crore names had been removed from draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR.

Congress steps up attack on Election Commission

Gandhi’s latest post is part of a wider Congress campaign against Kumar and the ECI. The party has alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revisions and has used the phrase “vote chori” to describe what it says are problems in the electoral process.

The New Indian Express reported on September 26 that Gandhi had accused Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah of putting Kumar in charge of “match-fixing” India’s elections. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra separately demanded Kumar’s resignation and criticised the legal safeguards available to Election Commissioners.

The party has also demanded that the Supreme Court hold Kumar accountable over the Form 6 controversy.

The wider Opposition has also stepped up its campaign against the ECI, with INDIA bloc leaders demanding greater transparency and accountability in the electoral-roll revision process.

The ECI has rejected allegations that its functioning has compromised the electoral process and has maintained that its decisions were taken through the prescribed institutional process.

The Supreme Court is now set to hear the challenge to Kumar’s functioning and the SIR, while the Opposition continues to press for his removal.