Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Tuesday said the Opposition was preparing articles for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, asserting that the statutory immunity granted to election commissioners under a 2023 law did not prevent Parliament from initiating constitutional proceedings against him.
In an interview with India Today TV, Tharoor demanded Kumar's resignation on moral grounds over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He said Opposition parties would pursue the constitutional removal process if the Chief Election Commissioner refused to step down.
Tharoor argued that the Election Commission's credibility had been seriously undermined by the controversy surrounding voter deletions and questioned whether Kumar could continue overseeing elections when major Opposition parties had lost confidence in his leadership.
The Thiruvananthapuram MP also called for the suspension of the SIR exercise, restoration of eligible voters allegedly removed from electoral rolls and an independent examination of the software used in the revision process.
Impeachment move under preparation
Tharoor said the legal immunity available to Kumar originated from legislation enacted by the BJP-led government in 2023 and should not be confused with protection against removal through the constitutional process.
He alleged that the legislation had been passed during Parliament's Winter Session after the suspension of a large number of Opposition MPs. "The Constitution does provide for impeachment. The Opposition is working on articles of impeachment," Tharoor said. He urged Kumar to resign voluntarily rather than allow the controversy to develop into a prolonged confrontation over the independence of the Election Commission.
According to Tharoor, stepping down would be appropriate in the interests of maintaining public confidence in India's electoral institutions.
The Constitution, however, does provide the Chief Election Commissioner with protection against arbitrary removal. Article 324(5) stipulates that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
This process is distinct from the statutory immunity governing civil and criminal proceedings.
Legal immunity under scrutiny
Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, provides protection to serving and former election commissioners against civil or criminal proceedings concerning acts performed in the discharge of their official duties.
The provision does not expressly extend to conduct unrelated to official functions.
Its constitutionality has been challenged before the Supreme Court. In January 2026, the apex court issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission but declined to stay the provision. The statutory protection remains operative while the legal challenge is pending. Tharoor maintained that the immunity provision could not prevent the Opposition from seeking Kumar's removal through Parliament.
Questions voter deletions
The Congress leader alleged serious procedural deficiencies in the SIR exercise, particularly concerning the deletion of names from electoral rolls and delays in reviewing complaints.
He said the Opposition was not opposed to removing the names of deceased voters or those who had permanently relocated, but questioned the methods being adopted by the Election Commission.
Tharoor alleged that the revision process had placed an unreasonable burden on citizens to establish their eligibility after their names were removed.
He also claimed that the software used in the exercise restricted Electoral Registration Officers from reversing certain deletions even when they believed that voters had been wrongly excluded.
Referring to an Indian Express investigation concerning 97 cases in Goa, he called for a detailed examination of the technology and procedures governing the revision exercise.
Tharoor further demanded the withdrawal of changes made to Forms 6 and 7, which are used for inclusion in electoral rolls and objections to existing entries, respectively. He alleged that delays in the appeals process could deprive eligible citizens of the opportunity to vote in successive elections.
Amartya Sen case cited
Tharoor referred to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen while questioning the manner in which discrepancies in voter records were being identified.
He claimed that the 94-year-old economist had been asked to explain an apparent age discrepancy involving his mother, who was recorded as being only 15 years older than him. Tharoor argued that historical social circumstances, including early marriages and childbirth, needed to be considered before treating such differences as grounds for questioning electoral eligibility.
He also cited instances of individuals who had represented India internationally receiving notices concerning their voting status.
The Congress MP questioned the scale of deletions, referring to a figure of 130 million names, and argued that such an exercise required greater transparency and stronger safeguards. The figure and the individual allegations were presented by Tharoor and were not independently established in the interview.
Jantar Mantar decision criticised
Tharoor also criticised the government's decision to withdraw Jantar Mantar's designation as a protest site following demonstrations against the Election Commission. He argued that shifting demonstrations away from central Delhi would reduce their visibility and weaken the ability of protesters to communicate their grievances to public authorities.
The government has designated Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi as alternative locations for demonstrations. Tharoor claimed that Ramlila Maidan had limited availability for the remainder of the year and that the other designated sites were comparatively distant from the principal centres of government.
He maintained that the right to peaceful protest should remain meaningful and accessible, rather than being confined to locations where demonstrations attracted little attention.
Opposition seeks electoral reforms
Tharoor said the Opposition's immediate objective was to restore confidence in the electoral process by ensuring that eligible citizens were not excluded from voter lists and that the Election Commission functioned impartially. He rejected suggestions that Opposition parties questioned electoral procedures only after suffering electoral defeats.
According to him, complaints raised by citizens who believed they had been wrongly removed from electoral rolls deserved examination regardless of political considerations. The Congress leader maintained that Opposition parties would respect the electorate's verdict, including a victory for the BJP, provided elections were conducted freely and fairly.
His remarks came amid an intensified INDIA bloc campaign against Kumar, with Opposition parties seeking his resignation and preparing fresh parliamentary proceedings over the Election Commission's handling of the SIR. The Election Commission has rejected allegations of institutional discord over its decisions, maintaining that final decisions concerning the revision exercise were taken unanimously.
The proposed removal proceedings have yet to result in Kumar's removal, and the allegations concerning electoral roll irregularities remain contested.