Gyanesh Kumar Faces Allegations Over Electoral Integrity

This centralization reportedly bypasses local officials, who are legally responsible for managing voter rolls, and allegedly prevents them from adding genuine voters.

Dhruv Rathee announced the AI Masterclass 4.0, scheduled for October 18th, aimed at upskilling individuals in practical AI applications like video creation and report writing.

Over 1.5 lakh people have participated in previous versions of the masterclass, which focuses on empowering users with AI tools.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutional body under Article 324, is composed of one Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, all holding equal rank.

Legally, the entire work of the ECI requires common consent or a majority vote among these three commissioners, with the Chief Election Commissioner acting only as 'first among equals' without individual decision-making power.

An investigation by Ritika Chopra of the Indian Express suggested that these decisions were made without the knowledge of the two commissioners, indicating a bypass of established ECI protocols.

The Representation of the People Act 1950 and Registration of Electors Rules 1960 legally mandate that Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), typically local SDMs, manage voter lists to prevent centralized control and voter fraud.

This decentralized system was historically cited by the ECI as a safeguard against fraud, as thousands of local officials managed the lists, making widespread manipulation difficult.

Reports indicate that this software implementation stripped EROs of their legal ability to add or delete names from voter lists, bypassing the statutory requirements for local electoral oversight.

Joshi argued on May 29 that only statutory authorities or EROs have the right to modify the voter database, while Sandhu criticized the IT division for creating unauthorized portals and sending communications in the commission's name without proper approval.

Conflict intensified on July 28 when Deputy Election Commissioner Sanjay Kumar was identified as the sole conduit for information regarding the IT division, effectively sidelining other commissioners.

In response, Sandhu and Joshi wrote directly to the cabinet secretary on July 29 about unilateral decisions and later issued a joint order on July 30 to reverse unauthorized actions, with Sandhu mandating full ERO access to ERO Net on August 14 to address access issues.

In Goa, 97 genuine voters, flagged under 'logical discrepancies,' could not be restored to the electoral roll due to software constraints, despite officers believing they deserved re-inclusion.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Goa emailed the commission eight times in seven days requesting a reversal mechanism, but the ECI failed to respond, leading to the permanent exclusion of these voters and highlighting a systemic issue that could affect millions nationally.

The software's prohibition against reversing deletion decisions indicates a critical flaw in the centralized system.

A new mandatory question was added to Form 6, requiring applicants to link their history to previous voter lists or family names, a change that Sandhu only discovered through an Indian Express report on July 12.

This action underscores the Chief Election Commissioner's disregard for the opposition of the other two commissioners and established legal procedures.

Despite these initial deletions, judicial officers later reviewed documentation and restored 33 lakh names to the voter list in February 2026, indicating a significant discrepancy in the original removals.

Sukhbir Sandhu later questioned officials regarding who authorized these mass appeals, emphasizing the lack of consultation with him and his colleague, raising concerns about the transparency of the ECI's actions.

This suggests a continued pattern of decisions made without the collective consent of the commission.

This 'VIP' status was reportedly to prevent their names from being removed from voter lists, effectively creating a two-tiered system that contradicts the constitutional principle of Universal Adult Franchise.

Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi reportedly advocated for the SSR to begin, but Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has delayed the decision for two years, raising concerns about voter disenfranchisement.

The Kaukro Janta Party issued a 48-hour ultimatum for his resignation, threatening nationwide agitation if their demands are not met, arguing that the Chief Election Commissioner is acting as a proxy for the ruling government and undermining democratic integrity.

The Kaukraj Janta Party also issued a 48-hour ultimatum for Kumar's resignation, threatening nationwide agitation if he does not step down, intensifying the political pressure for accountability.

Speculation suggests that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is acting under orders from the Prime Minister, leading to criticism that the government is effectively 'voting for the public' by manipulating voter lists.

The removal of voters is defined as a betrayal of democratic principles, with arguments that the systemic issues require legal action beyond mere resignation, as no Chief Election Commissioner could make such significant decisions alone without high-level backing.

This oversight is deemed crucial to prevent future commissioners from becoming government puppets, with previous videos on voter fraud in West Bengal and Bihar referenced for additional context on systemic issues.