Election Commission Row: Left Parties Demand CEC’s Resignation Amid SIR Controversy

The five Left parties issued a joint statement on 24 September 2026 calling for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Their demand follows reports that two election commissioners repeatedly dissented over the SIR, raising fresh questions about the Commission’s independence.

Constitutional Bedrock of the Election Commission

Article 324 of the Constitution creates the Election Commission of India as an independent constitutional authority to supervise elections to the Parliament, state legislatures and local bodies. Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament on the grounds of proved mis‑behaviour or incapacity, mirroring the removal process for a Supreme Court judge.

• ▸Article 324(1) vests the Commission with exclusive authority to conduct elections.
• ▸Article 324(5) requires a majority of the total membership of each House and a two‑thirds majority of members present and voting for removal.
• ▸The Commission’s decisions on electoral rolls are guided by Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (RPA).

The high threshold for removal is intended to shield the body from partisan pressure, but the present crisis tests whether procedural safeguards alone can guarantee functional independence.

The SIR Controversy and Internal Dissent

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a periodic, data‑driven exercise to purge duplicate or ineligible entries from the electoral rolls. Since early 2025, the Commission has undertaken a nationwide SIR, but internal minutes reveal that Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi lodged formal objections at least 14 times over the past ten months. Their dissent centred on the centralisation of the rolls database and the lack of collective decision‑making.

• ▸The two commissioners recorded objections on 14 separate occasions between 2025 and 2026.
• ▸The objections were not reflected in the final SIR orders signed solely by CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
• ▸State Chief Electoral Officers (CEOs) reported delays in updating local roll data after the SIR.

Such procedural anomalies have amplified concerns that the Commission’s “collective decision‑making” clause under Article 324(2) is being circumvented, eroding the perception of impartiality.

Political Fallout: Opposition’s Legal and Street Campaign

In response to the internal dissent, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI, CPI (ML) Liberation, Revolutionary Socialist Party and All India Forward Bloc signed a joint statement demanding the CEC’s resignation and a week‑long protest from 26 September to 2 October 2026. Karnataka Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar also called for a fresh SIR and the CEC’s removal, while Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan Satheesan stressed the need for “independence and transparency” to restore voter confidence.

• ▸The joint statement was issued after an impromptu meeting at AKG Bhawan, Delhi.
• ▸Opposition leaders plan to move fresh notices in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha seeking the CEC’s removal.
• ▸A prior petition filed on 24 April 2026 in the Rajya Sabha remains pending before Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan.

These moves invoke the constitutional removal mechanism and signal a rare convergence of left‑wing parties with regional governments on electoral integrity.

Reform Proposals: Selection Committee and Transparency Measures

The Left parties have echoed a Supreme Court‑suggested model that would replace the current executive‑centric appointment process with a three‑member selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. Such a committee, recommended in the Court’s 2023 judgment on the appointment of election commissioners, aims to institutionalise bipartisan consensus. Additionally, activists have called for the Commission to be subject to the Right to Information Act 2005 to enhance public scrutiny.

• ▸The Supreme Court’s 2023 order proposed a selection committee for election commissioners.
• ▸The proposed committee would include the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice.
• ▸Civil‑society groups demand that the Commission’s deliberations be disclosed under the RTI Act.

If adopted, these reforms could recalibrate the balance between executive influence and institutional autonomy, reinforcing democratic accountability.

Democratic Implications and the Road Ahead

The current impasse underscores the tension between constitutional safeguards and political expectations of impartiality. While Article 324 insulates the Commission, the visible dissent among its members and the opposition’s mobilisation suggest that procedural independence alone may not suffice. Restoring confidence will likely require both structural reforms—such as the selection committee—and a transparent handling of the SIR process. Until then, the credibility of upcoming elections, especially the 2027 general polls, may remain under scrutiny.