SIR To Removal Bid: Why Gyanesh Kumar’s ECI Tenure Has Faced Repeated Scrutiny

Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is facing renewed scrutiny after reports that two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, formally objected at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders taken by the poll panel.

The objections, first reported by The Indian Express, covered voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, appeals involving electoral rolls and access to voter-data systems. In some instances, the two Commissioners said decisions had been taken without their knowledge. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that its decisions, including those related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), were taken unanimously.

The latest controversy comes after months of political and legal scrutiny of the ECI's handling of electoral-roll revisions. Here is how the controversy has unfolded and what the Supreme Court has said about the ECI's powers over SIR.

What Are The Latest Objections Against The ECI?

One of the issues flagged by Sandhu and Joshi concerns Form 6, which is used by people applying to become voters.

According to report, a new declaration was added to the form asking applicants whether their name, or that of a parent or grandparent, appeared in the electoral roll from the previous SIR.

Joshi objected to the change in May, saying the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant rules. Sandhu later described the change as “unauthorised” and “illegal”.

Their objections also covered additions, deletions and restoration of names in electoral rolls. They questioned what they described as the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database and whether Electoral Registration Officers had adequate access to the systems required to maintain voter lists.

The two Commissioners also separately approached Cabinet Secretary T V Somanathan over changes involving the ECI’s IT systems and raised concerns about the management and security of electoral-roll data.

Why Did Opposition Parties Seek Gyanesh Kumar’s Removal?

The latest controversy follows earlier attempts by Opposition parties to initiate proceedings for Kumar’s removal.

On March 12, 2026, Opposition MPs submitted notices in both Houses seeking his removal. The Lok Sabha notice had 130 signatures, while the Rajya Sabha notice had 63. The notices referred, among other issues, to the ECI’s SIR exercise and alleged partisan and discriminatory conduct.

On April 6, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices. Radhakrishnan subsequently said the allegations did not provide the proof necessary to establish a prima facie case of “misbehaviour” for Kumar’s removal.

A fresh notice was then submitted in the Rajya Sabha on April 24, signed by 73 Opposition MPs and containing nine charges. It cited alleged acts and omissions from March 15 onwards.

How Can A Chief Election Commissioner Be Removed?

The Constitution gives the CEC a higher protection from removal than an ordinary Election Commissioner.

Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Article 124(4) provides that removal requires an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

The ground must be proved “misbehaviour or incapacity”. The procedure is also governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the 2023 law governing the Election Commission.

This means that submission of a notice does not itself remove a CEC. It has to clear the prescribed parliamentary and inquiry process before the matter can reach the stage of removal.

What Did The Supreme Court Say About SIR?

The legal controversy over SIR was also examined by the Supreme Court in the Bihar case. On May 27, 2026, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the ECI’s decision to conduct SIR in Bihar under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

The Court held that Article 324 and Parliament’s election laws operate in “mutual accommodation”. It said Section 21(3), which allows a special revision “in such manner as it may think fit”, gives the ECI the power to conduct a special revision when circumstances warrant it.

The Court also held that the power could extend across all constituencies in a state where the ECI identifies systemic inaccuracies. It accepted the ECI’s stated concerns over migration, urbanisation, duplication and changes in electoral rolls over time.

What Did The Court Say About Voters And Citizenship?

The Court held that an existing entry in an electoral roll carries a presumption in favour of the voter, but that presumption is not absolute or irrebuttable. It said re-verification during SIR does not by itself negate that presumption.

On procedure, the Court accepted the safeguards cited by the ECI, including enumeration, draft rolls, notices, reasoned orders and an appeals process. It also clarified that non-inclusion in a draft roll does not amount to final deletion.

On citizenship, the Court held that the ECI can conduct a limited inquiry into citizenship for electoral purposes, but formal adjudication of citizenship remains with the competent authority under the Citizenship Act.

The Court directed that Aadhaar be accepted as an identity document for the limited purpose of establishing identity, while making clear that it is not proof of citizenship. It also directed that cases where citizenship concerns arise should be referred to the competent authority for adjudication.

The Supreme Court ruling therefore upheld the ECI’s legal authority to conduct SIR in Bihar, while also setting out procedural safeguards and limits on how citizenship-related questions can be dealt with during the electoral-roll revision process.