New Delhi [India], September 23 (ANI): Escalating the political confrontation over the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Wednesday launched a scathing attack on Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, accusing himCongre of running a parallel mechanism in tandem with the executive.
Addressing the media, while referencing the Indian Express report that stated that two Election Commissioners had raised objections multiple times over decisions related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and electoral roll procedures, Singhvi drew attention to historical judicial parameters governing the poll body, pointing out that the apex court established decades ago that the panel functions collectively rather than under a single supreme authority.
“The BJP has opened an office for the murder of democracy; on one side, they have positioned the CEC, and on the other, the Home Ministry. Many years ago, that is uh uh in 1995, the Supreme Court made it clear that the EC is a majoritarian institution. You might remember, during the time of the honourable Seshan Sahab, this legal question arose: whether the CEC is supreme. Do the ECs of the election, of the Election Commission not have equal rights, jurisdiction, rights, or constitutional status? And this was clearly answered, which I will read after two to three minutes, that all the CECs are equal, uh all the ECs are equal. The CEC is not above the ECs, just ‘first among equals’,” Abhishek Manu Singhvi said.
Singhvi alleged that the CEC sidelined fellow commissioners and operated unilaterally and said, “Today’s revelation, made by you all, makes us understand that the honourable CEC not only misled the country; he did not just harm the constitutional values of the country, which he has been doing for a long time, but he misled his own colleagues. By hijacking the Election Commission, he, in a way, sidelined his colleagues from serving in it. He hijacked his own ECs. This is an example of an internal bulldozer. So, how the external bulldozer and internal bulldozer can work in partnership; this is a very disgusting example of that. And it is especially disgusting for a constitutional body.”
Emphasising the elevated standing required of independent democratic institutions, Singhvi added, “All bodies are important. Statutory bodies are also equally important. But constitutional bodies have a special status. The Supreme Court, not I, said this 30 years ago, or nearly 30 years ago. And those who have doubts about it, and I would want that the honourable CEC should also read it, if he has forgotten it or hasn’t read it at all.”
Recalling the specific wording of the historic ruling to underline the functional necessity of dissent within the commission, Singhvi said, “Para 20 states that all the ECs of the Election Commission, quote, unquote, “They must have a say in decision making.” 30 years ago. And then said, after that, “If the CEC is,” I’m quoting this, these are not my words. Not the Congress Party’s words.
Detailing the timeline of internal pushback documented within the poll panel over a ten-month window, Singhvi pointed to written protests lodged by Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu regarding modifications made to voter registration documents.
He said, “If the CEC is considered to be a superior in the sense that his word is final, he would render the ECs non-functional or ornamental.” Ornamental. 14 times, these people, whom the CEC considers ornamental, considers a dummy, considers a statue, they, 14 times in 10 months, expressed written protest and disagreement. Sandhu Sahab, I’m currently only providing dates. The matter they spoke about is even more serious. I’ll come to that as well. But note the dates. “
Highlighting the procedural bypassing, he noted, “On August 13, Sandhu Sahab wrote that this mess and alterations in Form 6 is, quote, unquote, “unauthorized and illegal.” Both Joshi Sahab and Sandhu Sahab formally protested against Form 6 in writing. The response? No response, absolute silence.”
Pointing to earlier administrative bottlenecks flagged inside the commission, Singhvi added, “Earlier, in May, they objected that Election Commission’s own ERO, Electoral Registration Officer, of its own, of the body, would not be given access by the IT department of its own Election Commission. That means you, whose work it is, you work in your company; that is your jurisdiction; the IT department of your own company does not give you access to your own work’s jurisdiction, area of work. This he wrote in May.”
Singhvi further drew attention to conflicting figures concerning voter deletion challenges, particularly in West Bengal
“The most telling silence, eloquent silence. Then, in August, Sandhu Sahab wrote that this is amazing! 20-23 lakh people, out of 38 lakh, in the case of West Bengal, 20-22 lakh people whose names were removed, they appealed. But the figure that you don’t know, 16 lakh appeals were made by the Election Commission,” Singhvi said.
The Opposition parties had earlier moved motions seeking the removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. In April 2026, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had said that 73 Opposition Rajya Sabha MPs submitted a fresh notice seeking the removal of the CEC on grounds of “proven misbehaviour”.
Earlier, a similar notice was submitted in the Lok Sabha, which was rejected by Speaker Om Birla after consideration, according to a Lok Sabha bulletin. The Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan also rejected the motion. (ANI)
Related reading
