New Delhi, Oct 5: The Congress on Monday demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of acting on what the party described as “illegal orders” and alleging that his conduct had made him a “liability for the country.”
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh made the remarks a day after Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised any electoral process that could result in the disenfranchisement of millions of citizens.
Sharing a video of Justice Bhuyan’s remarks on X, Ramesh said the judge had strongly questioned the constitutional validity of any process that deprives citizens of their voting rights.
“If he has any sense of shame, Gyanesh Kumar must quit right away,” Ramesh said, adding that the CEC’s alleged ability to “execute G2’s illegal orders” had made him a liability for the country. Ramesh uses “G2” to refer to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
The Congress has stepped up its criticism of the Election Commission amid the ongoing political dispute over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The party has cited Justice Bhuyan’s recent comments to argue that voting rights are an integral part of the constitutional framework and that electoral processes cannot arbitrarily deprive citizens of their franchise.
Ramesh had earlier said Justice Bhuyan’s observations showed that the CEC had violated the Constitution “in letter and spirit”. He also claimed that Kumar had lost the moral authority to remain in office.
Justice Bhuyan made the remarks while delivering the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad.
He said the Constitution does not create separate categories of citizens based on whether they possess voting rights. According to him, any process that results in large-scale disenfranchisement would raise serious questions under Articles 326 and 14.
Justice Bhuyan described such a process as intrinsically arbitrary and said it would strike at the core of the constitutional system. He stressed that no justification could legitimise a process that turns citizens into people without voting rights.
The judge also linked the right to vote with India’s struggle for freedom and democratic self-government. He said Article 326, which deals with elections to the Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, could not be undermined.
He further observed that no authority, including the judiciary, could place itself above the Constitution.
Justice Bhuyan also emphasised that the right to vote should not be viewed merely as a statutory entitlement created through parliamentary legislation such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
He described the right to be a voter as a constitutional right closely connected with democracy and referred to the broader basic-structure framework of the Constitution.
The Congress has used these observations to intensify its allegations against the Election Commission over the revision of electoral rolls.
Its latest criticism also follows reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise.
According to a report by The Indian Express, the two commissioners objected at least 14 times over a period of 10 months to decisions they said had been taken without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission, however, has rejected the suggestion that differences expressed during internal deliberations undermine its decisions. The poll panel has maintained that differing views are part of institutional deliberations and that its orders have full legal backing and are issued in accordance with statutory procedures.
The dispute over the electoral-roll revision has become a major political issue, with the Congress and other opposition parties questioning the process and its possible impact on voters.
The Election Commission has defended the exercise as part of its constitutional responsibility to maintain accurate electoral rolls.
Against this backdrop, the Congress is seeking greater scrutiny of the CEC’s role and has repeatedly questioned the manner in which the poll panel has handled the revision process.
Justice Bhuyan’s comments have added a fresh constitutional dimension to the political debate, particularly concerning the relationship between electoral-roll verification and the fundamental principles of representative democracy.
The controversy is expected to continue as political parties, election authorities and the judiciary examine questions surrounding voter eligibility, electoral-roll revision and the constitutional protection of voting rights.