Prashant Bhushan Seeks CEC Gyanesh Kumar's Removal and Prosecution: 14 Recorded Objections Put the SIR Process Under Scrutiny
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesA newspaper investigation found that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi repeatedly objected in writing to decisions taken during the Special Intensive Revision. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan is now calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to be removed and prosecuted. The Commission's answer is that disagreement is a normal part of how a multi-member body works. India's Election Commission is supposed to be run by three members deciding together. Internal notes now suggest that two of those three were repeatedly left out of the decisions. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan has called for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to be removed from office and also prosecuted. He described the reported disagreements inside the Commission over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls as "extremely serious." He also alleged that the objections raised by the two other Election Commissioners were being ignored and that control over key functions was being concentrated in too few hands. His comments came after an investigation by The Indian Express. It was based on internal notes and letters dated October 2025 to August 2026, in which Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi reportedly objected on record at least 14 times. Their concerns included decisions allegedly taken without their knowledge, the centralisation of electoral-roll software within the Commission's IT division, and lakhs of appeals filed in West Bengal against voters whose names had been restored. The Commissioners said they did not know who had authorised those appeals. The most serious dispute concerns Form 6, the statutory form for registering new voters. On May 16, Joshi reportedly wrote on file that the form "cannot be altered without making amendments in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960." Sandhu agreed three days later. Even so, an SIR-related declaration appeared on the online form in July. In August, Sandhu called the change "unauthorised/illegal" and directed that it be removed immediately. According to the report, it was still on the form this week. A second dispute involves a work-allocation order issued on July 28, which changed who handled IT responsibilities. Both Commissioners wrote separately to the Cabinet Secretary calling the order a violation of Section 18 of the 2023 Act that governs the appointment and service conditions of election commissioners. They then jointly set the order aside. The Election Commission has rejected the idea of a crisis. In a press note, it said that "differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution." It said all its major decisions, including the SIR, came from unanimous decisions of the full Commission. It also argued that picking out specific internal notes, while ignoring the much larger number of approvals and initiatives, "give only one part of the picture." Critics point out that the statement did not say who approved the Form 6 change or explain why the full Commission reportedly did not meet between May and August. The legal questions are significant. Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, a Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through the same process used for Supreme Court judges. That means a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority, on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Because the bar is set so high, Bhushan's demand is more likely to add political and legal pressure than to lead quickly to removal. Prosecution would require evidence of a specific offence, which no official inquiry has yet examined. The controversy also raises a broader question about how the Commission is governed. If the Commission can put out statements calling its decisions unanimous while two of its three members have written that they objected, then public trust in the body depends on transparency, not just on its own assurances. With opposition parties stepping up their attacks, the Commission may soon face this question in Parliament or in the courts. (Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations discussed are based on media reports and have not been adjudicated.)