Election Commission Turmoil: Calls for Arrest, Re‑election and a Test of Constitutional Safeguards

Mamata Banerjee, former chief minister of West Bengal, demanded on 23 September 2026 that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar be arrested and that the West Bengal assembly election be rerun on the “old voter list”. Her demand follows an Indian Express report that two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, had formally objected to several decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has rebutted the allegations, asserting that all actions were unanimous and lawful.

Constitutional Basis of the Election Commission

Article 324 of the Constitution creates the Election Commission of India, vesting it with exclusive authority to supervise elections to the Lok Sabha, state legislatures and the offices of the President and Vice‑President. The same article guarantees the Commission’s independence by making the removal of the CEC subject only to a parliamentary resolution on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, akin to the removal of a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4).

• ▸Article 324(1) confers “superintendence, direction and control” of elections.
• ▸Article 324(5) stipulates that the CEC can be removed only by a majority of the total membership of both Houses of Parliament, supported by a special majority.
• ▸Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 empowers the Chief Electoral Officer in each state to prepare and revise electoral rolls.

These provisions are intended to insulate the electoral process from partisan interference, ensuring that the fundamental right to vote under Article 326 is exercised on a fair and transparent roll.

The Special Intensive Revision and Internal Dissent

The SIR, launched in 2025, is a nationwide audit aimed at deleting ineligible entries and adding legitimate voters. According to the Indian Express expose, Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi recorded at least fourteen objections over a ten‑month period, describing certain additions and deletions as “unauthorised and illegal”. They alleged that major decisions were taken in the name of the full Commission without their knowledge.

• ▸The objections were logged between April 2025 and January 2026.
• ▸The disputed actions involved mass deletions in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.
• ▸The ECI’s official clarification on 23 September 2026 asserted that every SIR decision had the approval of both the CEC and the two Election Commissioners.

The clash exposes a procedural tension: while the Constitution mandates collective decision‑making, the Commission’s internal minutes are not statutorily required to be disclosed, leaving room for divergent interpretations of “unanimity”.

Political Fallout: Banerjee’s Demands and Opposition Unity

Banerjee’s virtual press conference on 23 September 2026 framed the alleged roll‑tampering as a “nation‑wide vote‑chori” orchestrated by the CEC. She called for the immediate arrest of Gyanesh Kumar and for criminal proceedings, urging the opposition INDIA bloc to convene on the issue. Her demand for a re‑poll “with the old voter list” reflects a belief that the pre‑SIR roll was free from manipulation.

• ▸Banerjee’s statement cited “crores of genuine voters being excluded” and “a similar number of bogus voters being added”.
• ▸The opposition has moved two motions in Parliament seeking the CEC’s removal.
• ▸The controversy has triggered plans for a nationwide protest against the CEC, coordinated by regional parties and the INDIA alliance.

These political maneuvers test the resilience of democratic accountability mechanisms, pitting parliamentary oversight against the high threshold for removal set by Article 324(5).

Institutional Checks: Removal Procedure and Judicial Oversight

Even if a parliamentary resolution were passed, the removal of a CEC must survive judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court, in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (1995), held that the removal process is a “juridical act” subject to review for compliance with constitutional safeguards. Moreover, the Court has previously intervened in electoral disputes under Article 324(1) when the Commission’s actions were alleged to violate the right to equality (Article 14) or the right to vote (Article 326).

• ▸A removal motion requires a simple majority in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, followed by a two‑thirds majority of the total membership of each House.
• ▸The Supreme Court can entertain a petition challenging the validity of the removal resolution on grounds of procedural impropriety.
• ▸Past judgments, such as S. R. Batra v. Election Commission (2005), underscore the Court’s willingness to enforce the “independence of the Commission” doctrine.

Thus, any attempt to oust the CEC will navigate a complex interplay of legislative supermajorities and potential judicial review.

What the Controversy Means for Democratic Accountability

The present dispute spotlights the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional fidelity. While the ECI argues that the SIR was essential to purge outdated entries, the opposition’s insistence on the “old voter list” reflects a fear that large‑scale deletions could disenfranchise legitimate voters. The episode also raises questions about internal transparency: if two Commissioners can lodge objections without public disclosure, the perception of unilateral decision‑making may erode trust.

• ▸The Constitution envisages the Commission as a “neutral arbiter”, yet internal dissent suggests a need for clearer procedural safeguards.
• ▸Strengthening the statutory requirement for documenting unanimity could enhance accountability without compromising the Commission’s operational autonomy.
• ▸Ultimately, the resolution—whether through parliamentary action, judicial intervention, or a political compromise—will set a precedent for how India safeguards its electoral integrity in an era of rapid demographic change.