These are not extraordinary demands. They are the minimum requirements of democracy.

Yet, over the past several years, a disturbing series of developments has raised serious questions about the independence of the Election Commission of India. The questions concern the appointment of election commissioners, the treatment of dissenting officials, the handling of electoral rolls, access to polling records and the growing concentration of decision-making power.

At the centre of this controversy stand Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. But the deeper problem developed over several years, through political decisions, legislative changes, administrative practices and a gradual erosion of institutional safeguards.

To understand what is happening today, we need to return to April 2019.

When a Prime Minister Asked for Votes in the Name of Soldiers

On 9 April 2019, Narendra Modi addressed an election rally in Latur, Maharashtra. Speaking to first-time voters, he asked whether they could dedicate their first vote to the soldiers killed in the Pulwama terrorist attack.

The Election Commission's guidelines prohibited political parties and candidates from using the armed forces for electoral propaganda. The local election authorities reportedly found that the speech violated the guidelines. Yet the Election Commission ultimately gave Modi a clean chit.

At that time, the Commission had three members. Two did not find the speech to be a violation. The third, Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa, disagreed. Lavasa believed the prohibition on using the armed forces for political campaigning should apply regardless of who was making the speech.

There is nothing inherently improper about a three-member commission deciding matters by majority. The real test is whether dissent is respected and whether officials can disagree without fearing consequences.

Ashok Lavasa and the Price of Dissent

Following the 2019 general election, income tax authorities initiated proceedings involving members of Ashok Lavasa's family, including his wife, sister and son. Reports described tax notices and questioning concerning alleged financial irregularities.

The government could argue that tax authorities were performing their statutory duties. An investigation cannot automatically be treated as political persecution merely because it involves the family of a public official. But the timing was troubling.

Lavasa had emerged as the commissioner who disagreed with decisions clearing the Prime Minister of alleged electoral violations. Soon afterwards, his family faced extensive scrutiny. The circumstances created a reasonable concern about whether an independent constitutional official was being subjected to pressure.

Lavasa eventually left the Election Commission in August 2020 to join the Asian Development Bank, before he could become Chief Election Commissioner under the expected seniority progression. His departure did not prove that the government had forced him out. Nevertheless, it raised a larger institutional question: what message does it send when an election commissioner dissents and subsequently sees his family investigated?

Independence can weaken when officials begin to believe that disagreement carries personal consequences.

The Supreme Court Tried to Protect the Appointment Process

For decades, the appointment of India's Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners remained largely within the control of the Union executive. The government that contests elections also played the decisive role in selecting the people responsible for supervising those elections.

In 2015, Anoop Baranwal filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court, questioning this system and seeking an independent appointment mechanism. The matter eventually reached a five-judge Constitution Bench.

During hearings in November 2022, the Supreme Court examined whether the existing appointment process provided sufficient protection for the Election Commission's independence. While proceedings were underway, the government appointed Arun Goel as an election commissioner.

Goel took voluntary retirement from the Indian Administrative Service on 18 November 2022. His retirement was accepted with remarkable speed, and he was appointed election commissioner the following day. The Supreme Court examined the files and questioned how a vacancy unfilled for months could suddenly be filled so quickly.

The Court did not invalidate Goel's appointment. But the episode illustrated how much discretion the executive possessed.

On 2 March 2023, the Constitution Bench delivered a unanimous judgment. Until Parliament enacted a law, election commissioners would be selected on the advice of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the largest opposition party, and the Chief Justice of India.

For the first time, the appointment process would have an institutional counterweight outside the political executive. It was an important safeguard. Unfortunately, it did not last.

How Parliament Changed the Supreme Court's Formula

The Supreme Court had expressly left Parliament free to enact legislation governing appointments. The Modi government used that opportunity in 2023.

The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 replaced the Court's interim selection arrangement. Under the new law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Chief Justice of India was removed.

Two of the three members therefore belong to the government. Even if the opposition member strongly objects, the government's representatives can approve an appointment by majority. The selection process retains decisive executive control.

The Election Commission is supposed to supervise elections involving the government of the day. Yet the government enjoys a built-in majority in selecting the officials who exercise that supervisory authority. A democracy should not depend entirely on the goodwill of those holding power.

A Controversial Passage Through Parliament

The legislation was passed in December 2023 amid strong opposition. Its passage coincided with an extraordinary period of parliamentary suspensions following the security breach of 13 December, when intruders entered the Lok Sabha chamber and released coloured smoke.

Opposition MPs demanded answers about the security failure. Large numbers were subsequently suspended. The election commissioners' legislation was passed while many opposition members were absent.

Parliament had the constitutional authority to legislate. But a law governing the independence of the electoral referee deserved extensive debate, consultation and an effort to secure broad political confidence. The issue was whether the resulting law strengthened the independence of the Election Commission. There are compelling reasons to believe that it did not.

Section 16 and the Question of Accountability

Section 16 of the 2023 law provides that courts shall not entertain or continue civil or criminal proceedings against a person who is or was the Chief Election Commissioner or an Election Commissioner for acts, things or words committed, done or spoken in the course of acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties.

Constitutional officials need protection against frivolous litigation. But protection from harassment must not become protection from accountability.

The wording is broad, and its precise scope and constitutional limits remain important legal questions. It should not be interpreted casually as permission to commit fraud, nor does it establish that every official act is beyond judicial scrutiny.

Nevertheless, when broad statutory immunity is combined with an appointment process dominated by the executive, the result deserves serious public examination. Who appoints the commissioners? Who holds them accountable? What remedies remain when their actions are challenged?

The Sudden Resignation Before the 2024 Election

In February 2024, Election Commissioner Anup Chandra Pandey retired. Then, on 9 March 2024, Arun Goel unexpectedly resigned, shortly before the announcement of the Lok Sabha election schedule.

Goel had been participating in election preparations and had considerable time remaining in his tenure. His departure was surprising, and the publicly stated reasons did not fully resolve speculation.

With two vacancies in the three-member Commission, the government appointed Gyanesh Kumar and Sukhbir Singh Sandhu in March 2024 under the 2023 law. Rajiv Kumar remained Chief Election Commissioner.

The sequence was lawful under the enacted legislation. Whether it inspired confidence in the Commission's independence is an entirely different question.

The 2024 Election and the Growing Transparency Problem

During the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the Election Commission faced criticism over delays in publishing detailed turnout information and the public availability of polling-station records.

One controversy concerned Form 17C, which records the account of votes polled at a polling station and is supplied to polling agents under election rules. Critics sought wider public access in a consolidated format to permit independent scrutiny of turnout figures.

Form 17C was not abolished or withheld from all political representatives. But the controversy exposed disagreement about how much electoral information should be available for independent verification. Greater transparency would have helped address suspicion. Instead, the Commission's responses often appeared defensive.

Campaign Speeches and Selective Enforcement

Human Rights Watch reported that Modi had made anti-Muslim remarks in at least 110 of 173 campaign speeches it examined. One widely criticised speech in Rajasthan suggested that a Congress government would redistribute people's wealth, including women's gold and mangalsutras, to Muslims.

The question was not whether the Prime Minister could criticise the opposition. He could. The question was whether a sitting Prime Minister should be held to the same electoral standards as every other candidate. An impartial regulator must apply rules consistently.

The Electoral Roll: Where the Most Serious Questions Begin

A citizen whose name is missing from the electoral roll may be unable to vote, regardless of political preference. Voter registration, deletion and correction are therefore among the most sensitive responsibilities of election administration.

Investigations by independent news organisations, including Newslaundry, raised concerns about voter deletions in constituencies such as Farrukhabad and Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. Reporting examined whether deletions disproportionately affected areas with significant opposition support, including Muslim, Dalit and Yadav populations. It also raised questions about allegedly irregular additions.

These findings deserve independent investigation. They do not, by themselves, establish that election results were fraudulent or that every reported deletion was unlawful. That would require examination of records, reasons for deletion, procedures and actual effects on voting.

If names are being deleted incorrectly, citizens deserve remedies. If deletions concentrate in particular communities or opposition strongholds, the Commission must explain why. If there is evidence of deliberate manipulation, those responsible must face legal consequences.

Why the Assembly Election Results Raised More Questions

The BJP won 240 seats in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, falling short of an independent majority, but formed a government with its NDA partners. In the following months, the BJP and its allies secured important assembly victories in Haryana and Maharashtra, and the BJP returned to power in Delhi in February 2025.

Opposition parties questioned the contrast between the national and state outcomes. Maharashtra became a focus because of voter-registration changes and the scale of the ruling alliance's victory.

Electoral swings between national and state elections are not inherently evidence of fraud. Voters can make different choices, alliances can change and turnout can vary. The legitimate question is whether electoral data and voter-roll changes can be independently verified. The Commission should answer with clear, accessible and auditable records.

Rajiv Kumar's Departure and Gyanesh Kumar's Rise

Rajiv Kumar retired as Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025. Gyanesh Kumar became India's 26th Chief Election Commissioner on 19 February 2025.

Later, Rajiv Kumar was appointed non-executive part-time chairman of HDFC Bank, subject to regulatory approval. That attracted criticism because of controversies surrounding elections conducted during his tenure. But a private-sector appointment after retirement is not, in itself, evidence of electoral wrongdoing.

The appropriate questions concern conflicts of interest, regulatory compliance and whether official decisions were improperly influenced. Public trust depends on formal legality and visible independence.

Who Is Gyanesh Kumar?

Gyanesh Kumar is a 1988-batch IAS officer of the Kerala cadre. He held important positions in the Union government, including assignments in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Cooperation.

During the process surrounding the removal of Jammu and Kashmir's special constitutional status in 2019, he held responsibilities connected with Jammu and Kashmir affairs. He also played an administrative role in establishing the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust following the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment.

He later served as Secretary in the Ministry of Cooperation, headed politically by Amit Shah. He retired in January 2024 and was appointed Election Commissioner in March 2024.

These positions demonstrate extensive administrative experience, not automatic proof of political bias. But an election supervisor must be capable of acting against the interests of the government under which he previously served.

The Allegation Made by a Former Senior Bureaucrat

The source transcript refers to an allegation by former senior IAS officer Jiji Thomson, who reportedly said Kumar had suggested that he contest the 2019 Lok Sabha election on a BJP ticket and pursue a ministerial position.

This must remain identified as Thomson's account unless independently corroborated. A reported private conversation is not conclusive proof of partisan conduct in constitutional office. The Commission's credibility must be assessed through decisions, procedures, transparency and adherence to law.

The Vote Theft Allegations and the Demand for Evidence

On 7 August 2025, Rahul Gandhi presented allegations of electoral-roll manipulation, including irregularities in the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of the Bengaluru Central parliamentary constituency. He questioned alleged duplicate voters, suspicious addresses and other entries.

The Election Commission challenged the allegations and demanded formal declarations or supporting evidence. Requiring evidence before accepting an allegation of fraud is reasonable. But if credible anomalies are presented, the Commission must investigate through a transparent and impartial process.

The Commission should not behave like a political opponent in a television debate. Its responsibility is to establish facts, explain findings and correct genuine irregularities.

The CCTV Controversy

Questions were also raised about access to polling-station CCTV footage. Gyanesh Kumar defended restrictions by referring to voter privacy, including women's privacy.

Privacy is legitimate, but privacy and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Restricted access, judicial supervision and redaction can protect individuals while preserving evidence needed for legitimate scrutiny.

If records cannot be examined when credible allegations arise, citizens are asked to trust an institution without adequate means of checking its conduct. Trust is important. Verification is equally important.

Bihar, Welfare Payments and the Question of Consistency

The transcript raises a controversy about welfare payments around the Bihar Assembly election. The Bihar government's Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana involved an initial assistance amount of ₹10,000 for eligible women. Opposition parties alleged that the timing of payments around the election was intended to influence voters.

The account compares this with the Election Commission's November 2023 restriction on disbursements under Telangana's Rythu Bandhu scheme during the election period.

Whether a payment violates election rules depends on the scheme's status, timing, applicable restrictions and any permission granted. A welfare payment during an election is not automatically illegal. The Commission must apply consistent principles to all governments and explain differences in treatment.

Special Intensive Revision and the Fear of Disenfranchisement

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls became one of the most contentious developments under Gyanesh Kumar. The Commission says revisions are needed to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters, ineligible registrations and inaccuracies. That objective is legitimate.

But correction must not become a mechanism through which genuine citizens lose voting rights. The transcript describes concerns about deletions, documentary requirements, alleged discrepancies and the treatment of voters in opposition-leaning regions, including Bihar's Seemanchal and parts of West Bengal.

The issue is how revisions are carried out, who bears the burden of proof, whether notices are properly served, whether appeals are meaningful and whether officials follow statutory procedures. A legitimate voter must not be treated as an intruder in their own democracy.

The Indian Express Investigation: A Crisis Inside the Commission

An investigation attributed to The Indian Express journalists Ritika Chopra and Damini Nath reportedly revealed serious disagreements within the Election Commission. According to the account, Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi repeatedly objected to decisions taken or implemented without adequate consultation. The report described at least 14 recorded objections over approximately ten months.

The Commission has disputed the implication that its decisions lacked collective approval. That response must be considered alongside the reporting.

Criticism from opposition parties can be dismissed as political disagreement. But reported objections by two serving commissioners about their own institution demand scrutiny. A multi-member Commission is intended to prevent excessive concentration of authority.

1. The Controversial Changes to Form 6

Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll. The transcript states that a new question was added asking whether applicants, their parents or grandparents appeared in an earlier SIR roll.

According to the reported investigation, the change was introduced without following the required legal process and without approval that the two commissioners believed necessary. Election forms are governed by prescribed rules. An unauthorised mandatory question can affect whether eligible citizens can apply.

The Commission must explain who authorised the change and under what legal provision. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that it had neither approved nor disapproved the modified Form 6.

2. The West Bengal Appeals Controversy

The transcript describes voters flagged for logical discrepancies in West Bengal, followed by judicial decisions restoring some names. It then refers to appeals challenging the restoration of approximately 16.10 lakh voters.

According to the reported investigation, Sandhu questioned who authorised filing those appeals on behalf of the Election Commission and why commissioners and relevant state authorities were not adequately informed.

Who instructed the lawyers? Who approved the appeals? What grounds were examined? These questions concern the voting rights of citizens whose eligibility had already been considered through a judicial process.

3. ECI Net and the Centralisation of Electoral-Roll Control

Under electoral law, Electoral Registration Officers, or EROs, have statutory responsibilities for maintaining and correcting rolls. The transcript alleges that controls in ECI Net concentrated significant authority in the Commission's central IT administration and restricted local officers' access.

The reported concerns of Sandhu and Joshi focused on whether software prevented authorised officials from exercising legal powers. Software cannot override the law. A digital system should help officials discharge statutory responsibilities, not silently transfer them elsewhere.

If local EROs cannot perform lawful corrections because a central system denies access, the problem is not simply technical. It concerns legal authority and accountability.

The Reported Removal of an Administrative Link

The transcript describes a dispute concerning Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar, reportedly an administrative link between the commissioners and the IT division. Changes to his responsibilities were allegedly made without adequately informing Sandhu and Joshi.

The commissioners reportedly objected, including through communications to the Cabinet Secretary, and the decision was reversed. Internal communication is not an optional courtesy in a constitutional body. Members must be able to obtain information and exercise oversight.

Why Electoral Transparency Is Becoming More Difficult

The transcript identifies electoral rolls published as scanned PDF documents. These can be difficult to search, compare and analyse. A public document that cannot meaningfully be searched is technically available but practically difficult to scrutinise.

There are legitimate privacy questions surrounding mass publication of voter information. But those should be addressed with carefully designed safeguards, not unnecessary barriers to verification.

The Change to Rule 93

In December 2024, the Union government amended Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, restricting categories of election-related documents available for public inspection. The amendment followed litigation over access to election records, including CCTV footage.

The government defended restrictions on privacy and potential misuse grounds. Critics argued that they reduced transparency. This was not merely an internal Commission decision: the Union government changed the legal framework.

The Retention of CCTV Footage

The transcript refers to a 2025 policy under which polling-station CCTV and related footage could be deleted after the 45-day election-petition period if no relevant challenge was pending.

There are reasons for retention limits, including privacy, security and cost. But allegations may take time to investigate. Where credible disputes exist, procedures must ensure that relevant evidence is preserved.

The Revolving Door Between Election Administration and Government

The transcript raises concerns about senior election officials receiving government appointments after supervising elections. It refers to developments involving Manoj Kumar Agarwal and Dr Subrata Gupta in West Bengal, and to an Assam official, Debasish Sharma, reportedly entering electoral politics.

These cases require individual examination of dates, service rules, resignations and precise responsibilities. A civil servant accepting another assignment is not automatic proof of misconduct. Nor does joining politics after leaving service establish earlier bias.

Nevertheless, appearances matter. Election officials must avoid conduct that creates reasonable doubts about neutrality. The public is entitled to ask whether safeguards against conflicts of interest existed.

The Real Question Is Bigger Than Gyanesh Kumar

Gyanesh Kumar must answer for decisions taken under his leadership. But the structural problem is larger. Executive-dominated appointments were created through legislation. Changes affecting public access to records involved government rule-making. Electoral-roll controversies involve statutory authorities, administrative instructions and software.

No single resignation would automatically repair all these problems. India needs an appointment process commanding confidence across parties, procedures for recording dissent, local officials able to exercise legal duties, accessible and auditable records, and meaningful accountability when election authorities fail to follow the law.

A Democracy Cannot Survive on Blind Trust

The most dangerous development is not simply that political parties accuse the Commission of bias. The greater danger is when ordinary citizens believe the institution responsible for protecting their vote is unwilling to explain its own actions.

A constitutional authority should welcome legitimate scrutiny. It should provide records, explain decisions, investigate credible allegations and correct mistakes. The Election Commission does not exist to protect Modi, Gandhi, the BJP, Congress or any other party. It exists to protect the voter's right to a free and fair electoral process.

Who Will Protect the Voter From the Referee?

An election is not fair merely because electronic voting machines function, polling takes place peacefully or a winning party points to its mandate. Electoral integrity begins with the roll and depends on impartial campaign enforcement, transparent administration, preserved records and independent decisions.

Allegations must be examined rigorously. No individual should be declared guilty merely because accusations have been made. But refusing meaningful scrutiny is not a substitute for disproving allegations.

Modi's government must answer for the laws and rules it has introduced. Gyanesh Kumar must answer for the Commission's functioning. Reported objections by fellow commissioners deserve independent examination.

A government may win an election. But it does not own the electoral process. The Election Commission may conduct an election. But it does not own the voter's democratic rights.

When the referee itself becomes the subject of serious questions, the answer cannot be to silence the spectators. The answer must be to open the records, examine the decisions and restore institutional independence. The vote belongs to the citizen.

Watch this Video to understand the full Fraud

=================================

References and Attribution

The Indian Express: 14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel steps.

The Indian Express: Election Commissioners objected to changes in Form 6.

The Indian Express: Election Commission's response to the reported objections.

Human Rights Watch:India: Hate Speech Fueled Modi's Election Campaign. 

The Indian Express: Supreme Court clarifies its position on modified Form 6, October 2026.

Reuters: What is fuelling India's protests over changes to voter lists?.