Did Gyanesh Kumar and BJP commit Treason?

The controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has moved well beyond an ordinary political dispute. Opposition politicians have accused him and the Election Commission of facilitating “vote chori”, manipulating electoral rolls and enabling mass disenfranchisement. Those are extraordinarily serious accusations.

No court or constitutional body has intervened in this matter yet, apart from the Supreme Court who previously upheld the Election Commission's Bihar Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, concluding that the measures adopted were not excessive or manifestly arbitrary.

Yet dismissing the entire controversy as partisan rhetoric would be equally misleading. The most consequential development is the reported disagreement inside the Election Commission itself. Recent reporting by Ritika Chopra, journalist working with Indian Express, published a detailed investigation of Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi having recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over roughly ten months concerning electoral-roll procedures. Reported areas of concern included voter additions and deletions, modifications to Form 6, control of electoral-roll databases and decisions allegedly taken without the commissioners' knowledge. One reported objection described a Form 6 modification as “unauthorised and illegal”. You can read the investigation here.

That is important because this is no longer merely a case of an Opposition party accusing the referee of bias. If accurately reported, it means concerns about the administration of the electoral rolls emerged from the other constitutional commissioners sitting alongside the CEC. Reports say the commissioners also raised concerns regarding the gradual centralisation of the electoral-roll database and sought assurances that nobody other than the appropriate statutory authorities could alter it. However people sitting in Central Government could alter and access the voter list rathen than local level officers, who by law should be doing this task.

The speech that damaged perceptions of neutrality

Gyanesh Kumar's own public rhetoric has also attracted criticism. On 17 August 2025, responding to Rahul Gandhi's allegations of “vote theft”, Kumar publicly told him to provide a signed affidavit or apologise to the country, adding: “There is no third option.” He said that if an affidavit was not provided within seven days, the allegations would be regarded as baseless. Kumar also argued that allegations of bias against the Election Commission amounted to an insult to the Constitution.

This tone in itself reflects the arrogance in the conduct of Gyanesh Kumar. A constitutional referee confronted with detailed allegations should ideally sound forensic rather than adversarial: publish evidence, explain discrepancies, identify the applicable procedure and invite scrutiny. “Affidavit or apology” transformed what should have been an institutional answer into something resembling a political confrontation. Congress subsequently accused the CEC of responding differently when similar allegations came from others.

The developments in September 2026 nevertheless deepen the institutional question. If important administrative changes really were carried out in the Commission's name without the knowledge or agreement of its other members, that deserves a transparent explanation. Conversely, if the ECI is correct that the final decisions were unanimously approved, it should be possible for the institution to demonstrate that decisively through its records, but the Indian express report proved that Gyanesh Kumar took decisions single handedly and also gave power to people sitting in central government (in IT ministry) to alter voters data.

Gyanesh Kumar has forgotten that, India's Election Commission depends not merely on exercising statutory authority but on convincing losing parties and ordinary voters that the rules were administered impartially. A combative CEC, politically explosive voter-list revisions, reported objections from fellow commissioners, disputes over database control and litigation about voter exclusion collectively create a serious crisis of confidence, even before anyone proves intentional election-rigging.

That is why Kumar's conduct deserves the highest level of scrutiny. It has also been alleged that the current ruling government (BJP) is manipulating each level of election process in way that suits them to win elections. Having said that does not mean that each and every MLA or MP who won is rigging the election but it is alleged that Gyanesh Kumar has committed treason by snatching away the right to vote from crores of Indians due to his arrogance and by orders from political masters. Gyanesh Kumar has brought shame to the office of Election Commission and let down such institution by not acting as neutral agency.

Also it is important to note here that, in 2023 BJP ruled central government brought in a law over the Appointment of CEC. Under the 2023 Act, the recommendation comes from a three-member Selection Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister (which was CJI earlier) nominated by the PM. This gives government members a 2-to-1 numerical presence on the committee.

Why this is controversial: In Anoop Baranwal (2023), the Supreme Court had created an interim arrangement consisting of the PM + LoP + Chief Justice of India until Parliament legislated. The 2023 Act subsequently replaced the CJI's place with a Union Minister nominated by the PM.

In a democracy, the referee does not earn trust by demanding that critics trust it. It earns trust by making its decisions, data safeguards and accountability mechanisms sufficiently transparent that allegations of manipulation can be tested against evidence. Whatever has happened is Infront of the country and people in power and CEC has committed an act that shall be dealt with in a manner that people remember for hundreds of year. Gyanesh Kumar should be put behind the bars and People who are backing him in the government should be scrutinized and punished accordingly.

Get membership to feature your article. Check here.