The Congress on Sunday stepped up its attack on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, citing Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s remarks on voting rights to claim that the poll panel chief had “lost all moral right” to remain in office.
Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said Justice Bhuyan’s observations on disenfranchisement and the constitutional significance of the right to vote had “exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel”. His comments represented the Congress’s political interpretation of the judge’s broader constitutional remarks; Justice Bhuyan did not name the CEC in the observations cited by the party.
‘Violated Constitution’
Sharing a media report on Justice Bhuyan’s speech, Ramesh said the Supreme Court judge had forcefully expressed the view that the right to vote formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
“This conclusively proves that the CEC — constitutional functionary himself — has violated the Constitution itself both in letter and spirit,” Ramesh said.
“Justice Bhuyan has said much more and has exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. Gyanesh Kumar has simply lost all moral right to continue in office,” he added.
The Congress has repeatedly targeted the Election Commission and Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, alleging that the exercise could result in the exclusion of eligible voters. The Election Commission has rejected allegations of partisan manipulation and maintained that the revision process is intended to ensure accurate electoral rolls.
What Justice Bhuyan said
Speaking at an event at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan said any process resulting in the disenfranchisement of millions of Indian citizens would be “intrinsically arbitrary” and a negation of the constitutional order.
“If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens, making them second-class citizens in their own country... such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan said the Constitution did not envisage two categories of citizens — those possessing voting rights and those without them. He said a process resulting in the wholesale disenfranchisement of citizens would violate Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution.
Article 326 provides for elections to the Lok Sabha and state Legislative Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage, subject to constitutionally permitted disqualifications, while Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
Congress links remarks to SIR
Ramesh sought to connect Justice Bhuyan’s constitutional observations with the Opposition’s continuing criticism of the SIR exercise and the functioning of the Election Commission.
The distinction is significant because Justice Bhuyan’s remarks set out constitutional principles concerning voting rights and mass disenfranchisement, while the Congress independently argued that those principles established wrongdoing by the CEC. The remarks cited by Ramesh were not themselves a judicial finding that Kumar had violated the Constitution.
The Congress and several other Opposition parties have nevertheless used concerns over voter deletions to intensify their campaign against the poll body, arguing that safeguards are necessary to prevent eligible citizens from being excluded from electoral rolls.
EC commissioners’ objections
The latest Congress attack also comes amid scrutiny over reported disagreements within the three-member Election Commission over decisions connected with the SIR.
The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over the previous 10 months to decisions and orders related to the revision exercise that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The report has added another dimension to the political dispute, with Opposition parties questioning whether decisions carrying the authority of the Election Commission were reached collectively by its three members.
EC rejects allegations
The Election Commission has pushed back against the criticism, maintaining that differences in views and observations are a normal part of deliberations within an institution.
Responding to questions raised over the reported objections, the poll body has asserted that all its orders carry full legal sanction and are issued in accordance with established statutory procedures.
The Commission has also maintained that the SIR is aimed at protecting the integrity of electoral rolls by removing ineligible entries while ensuring that eligible citizens can remain enrolled or seek inclusion through the prescribed process.
The political confrontation has consequently moved beyond the mechanics of electoral-roll revision to questions about decision-making within the Election Commission itself. The Congress is using Justice Bhuyan’s remarks to reinforce its demand for accountability from Kumar, while the poll body maintains that its decisions are legally valid and institutionally authorised.