New Delhi | 24 Sep 2026
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Thursday demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of presiding over what Gandhi described as systematic “vote theft”. The Election Commission has rejected the wider allegations of electoral manipulation and said its final decisions were taken unanimously and in accordance with law.
Rahul Gandhi targets Gyanesh Kumar over ‘vote theft’ allegations
Addressing a press conference at the Congress headquarters in New Delhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha alleged that electoral rolls and election-related processes had been manipulated. He held Kumar responsible for what he called the weakening of India’s electoral system.
Gandhi linked his allegations of “vote theft” to the legitimacy of laws passed by elected representatives, arguing that any manipulation of the electoral mandate would undermine Parliament and the constitutional order built upon it.
“From vote theft comes theft of the law. If the vote has been stolen, then any law or institutional change made by lawmakers elected through stolen votes is also illegal.”
— Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha
These remain political allegations. No court or independent statutory inquiry has established that the 2024 Lok Sabha election or subsequent Assembly elections were rigged.
Reported internal objections trigger fresh controversy
Gandhi’s remarks followed an Indian Express investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections at least 14 times over 10 months to proposals and processes concerning electoral rolls.
The reported objections involved voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6, access to electoral databases and the management of voter information during the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR.
One reported disagreement concerned a question added to the online Form 6 for new voters, asking whether the applicant, a parent or a grandparent had appeared in an electoral roll prepared during an earlier intensive revision. Sandhu reportedly described the change as unauthorised and sought its removal.
The existence of internal observations does not, by itself, establish that a final decision was imposed without the other commissioners’ consent. The central dispute is whether the records reveal substantive dissent or routine institutional scrutiny before decisions were approved.
Election Commission says final decisions were unanimous
The Election Commission said written observations, questions and technical suggestions were part of its normal system of deliberation and checks and balances. It maintained that all final decisions, including those concerning SIR and electoral-roll reforms, had the unanimous approval of the full three-member Commission.
The poll body argued that highlighting selected internal notes without considering subsequent discussions and final approvals presented only part of the institutional record.
The Bharatiya Janata Party has also rejected the Opposition’s allegations. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra accused Opposition parties of attacking constitutional institutions after electoral defeats and argued that reported differences during internal discussions did not prove wrongdoing.
Why Rahul Gandhi opposed Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment
Gandhi was a member of the selection committee that recommended Kumar’s appointment as Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025. He submitted a dissent note and sought postponement of the selection until the Supreme Court considered petitions challenging the new appointment mechanism.
Under the 2023 law, the selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The legislation replaced the Chief Justice of India, included under an interim arrangement framed by the Supreme Court, with a Union minister.
Gandhi’s statement that the government placed election commissioners “above the law” referred to Section 16 of the 2023 Act. The provision restricts courts from entertaining civil or criminal proceedings against serving or former election commissioners for actions taken, or purportedly taken, while discharging official duties.
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a challenge to that immunity provision but has not stayed its operation. Its constitutional validity therefore remains under judicial consideration.
Opposition considers motion to remove the CEC
Opposition parties are preparing a motion in Parliament seeking Kumar’s removal, according to Congress sources cited in media reports. Such a move would face a demanding constitutional threshold.
Article 324(5) of the Constitution provides that a Chief Election Commissioner may be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. That requires proof of misbehaviour or incapacity and special-majority approval in both Houses of Parliament.
For now, the controversy presents two sharply competing accounts: the Opposition sees the reported internal objections as evidence of an institutional breakdown, while the Election Commission says they demonstrate a functioning deliberative process that ultimately produced unanimous decisions. Establishing either account conclusively would require disclosure of the complete official record and independent legal scrutiny.
Rahul Gandhi vote theft allegations, Gyanesh Kumar resignation demand, Election Commission controversy, SIR electoral rolls, Election Commission internal objections, CEC appointment law 2023, Section 16 Election Commissioners Act, Chief Election Commissioner removal process
#RahulGandhi #GyaneshKumar #ElectionCommission #VoteTheft #IndianPolitics
