The Election Commission of India (ECI) and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar are facing intense scrutiny following an investigation by The Indian Express that revealed repeated objections raised by two Election Commissioners over decisions concerning voter registration, deletion of names from electoral rolls and the functioning of the Commission's digital systems.
The controversy has since moved beyond political criticism. On September 29, the Supreme Court agreed to list a petition challenging the manner in which the Election Commission has allegedly exercised its powers under CEC Kumar, adding a new legal dimension to the dispute.
However, an important distinction is necessary: the allegations of "corruption" currently being made against Gyanesh Kumar are political allegations concerning the functioning of the electoral system. The reports reviewed for this story do not establish that Kumar personally accepted bribes or was involved in a conventional financial corruption case.
The controversy began with an extraordinary internal rift
The central revelation came from an investigation by The Indian Express journalist Ritika Chopra, published on September 25.
The objections reportedly covered some of the most sensitive responsibilities of the poll panel:
- registration of new voters;
- deletion and restoration of names from electoral rolls;
- appeals concerning voter inclusion and deletion;
- changes to Form 6 used for voter registration;
- access and control over electoral-roll databases;
- and the administration of the ECI's digital infrastructure.
The significance is not merely that disagreements existed. According to the investigation, two of the three members of the constitutional body complained that they were being kept out of important decisions.
Why the number 14 matters
Chopra's report says the two Election Commissioners objected 14 times in 10 months, with four objections being recorded on a single day.
The objections were not simply about routine administrative matters. They related directly to who could become a voter, who could remain on the electoral roll and who controlled the systems holding the voter database.
In one instance, the report says, Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu described certain action taken by the Commission as "unauthorised and illegal."
The report also says that both Commissioners' objections were copied to CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Form 6 controversy
One of the most significant issues concerns Form 6, which is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion in the electoral roll.
According to Ritika Chopra's investigation, a new declaration was added to the online version of Form 6 on the ECI's ECINet portal.
The new section asked a prospective voter whether the applicant, their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll from the previous Special Intensive Revision.
The problem, according to the report, was that the two Election Commissioners had already raised legal objections to making such a change.
Election Commissioner Vivek Joshi reportedly recorded his objection on May 16, arguing that Form 6 was a statutory form prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and therefore could not simply be altered through an SIR order or guideline.
Sandhu subsequently agreed with Joshi's position.
Yet, according to the Indian Express investigation, the change was implemented.
After the newspaper reported the change in July, Sandhu again wrote on August 13 that the alteration was "unauthorised and illegal" and should be removed immediately.
This is one of the strongest elements of the controversy because it raises a basic administrative question:
Can a statutory election form be changed through an administrative process when two members of the Commission have formally argued that the law requires a different procedure?
That question remains central to the current dispute.
What about first-time voters?
The Form 6 controversy is particularly important for young Indians registering to vote for the first time.
Under the disputed online process, a new voter could be asked to identify whether their own name, or the name of a parent or grandparent, appeared in an earlier electoral roll.
The Indian Express report pointed out that this could create difficulties for young voters whose families did not appear in the earlier rolls.
The two Election Commissioners reportedly warned that the change could create unnecessary difficulties for otherwise eligible first-time voters.
The issue subsequently became part of the wider political argument over whether the SIR exercise could unintentionally or otherwise exclude eligible voters.
The bigger concern: Who controls the voter database?
The controversy goes beyond Form 6.
Ritika Chopra's investigation also examined concerns raised by Sandhu and Joshi about the centralisation of access to electoral-roll databases.
Traditionally, electoral-roll preparation has significant decentralised components, with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) responsible for voter lists in their respective constituencies.
According to the investigation, the two Commissioners questioned whether access to the voter database was increasingly being concentrated through the ECI's central IT systems.
They reportedly expressed concern that such centralisation could bypass the traditional safeguards associated with local election officials.
The issue became serious enough for the two Commissioners to separately approach Cabinet Secretary T. V. Somanathan over concerns surrounding the administration and integrity of the ECI's IT systems.
That is an unusual development because the Election Commission is an independent constitutional authority.
ECINet: Why the digital system matters
The Election Commission launched ECINet in January 2026 as an integrated technology platform bringing together more than 40 applications and portals used by the electoral machinery.
CEC Gyanesh Kumar had described the system as being built in accordance with the law.
But the Indian Express investigation reported that the two Election Commissioners had concerns regarding changes in the administrative control and work allocation surrounding the IT infrastructure.
Their concern, according to the report, was not simply whether the software worked technically. It was also about who had authority to control access to electoral data and whether statutory officers at the ground level were being given adequate access.
This distinction is important.
A technically secure database can still raise governance questions if the institutional structure controlling access to it changes without adequate transparency.
Goa: A real-world example adds to the controversy
Another episode highlighted in the reporting involved Goa.
The Election Commission subsequently acknowledged that 97 voters identified as eligible had been left out of the electoral roll.
The ECI said that 81 of those 97 voters had subsequently submitted Form 6 applications for inclusion.
Opposition leaders used the episode to question the accuracy and reliability of the electoral-roll revision process.
The issue became particularly sensitive because it appeared at a time when the ECI was already facing questions over how voters were being removed and restored during SIR.
Did the Election Commission deny the allegations?
The ECI has rejected the suggestion that the internal disagreements demonstrate that the Commission was functioning unlawfully.
After the Indian Express investigation, the Commission said that the objections recorded by Sandhu and Joshi were essentially suggestions and inputs forming part of normal institutional deliberation.
The Commission also maintained that important decisions taken during the period had the unanimous approval of all three Commissioners.
On September 26, the Commission announced nine measures following a meeting attended by all three Commissioners.
Among the measures were steps concerning:
- advance circulation of meeting agendas;
- recording of minutes;
- implementation of directions issued by Election Commissioners;
- strengthening the electoral-roll process;
- assistance for voters facing difficulties;
- and measures concerning the EC's IT systems.
The Commission also said that the work-allocation order involving the officer whose role had been questioned by the two Commissioners was never implemented and that oversight of the IT division had not actually been withdrawn.
Why is Gyanesh Kumar being accused of "corruption"?
This is where the controversy needs careful wording.
Following the Indian Express investigation, Opposition leaders escalated their accusations against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, for example, accused the Commission of operating a "broken and corrupt system" in the context of voter deletions and demanded answers over voters allegedly excluded from electoral rolls.
Congress and other Opposition leaders have also used terms such as "vote theft" and alleged that the electoral process has been manipulated.
But these are allegations and political claims, not established findings that Gyanesh Kumar personally committed financial corruption.
The distinction is crucial for responsible reporting.
The Indian Express investigation establishes that two Election Commissioners repeatedly objected to certain decisions and procedures. It does not, by itself, establish that CEC Kumar personally took money, accepted bribes or committed a criminal financial offence.
The more precise question raised by the evidence is therefore:
Were electoral and administrative decisions being taken in accordance with the law and the collective decision-making requirements applicable to the Election Commission?
That question is now moving into the courts.
Supreme Court enters the controversy
The controversy took a new turn on September 29, 2026, when the Supreme Court agreed to list a petition challenging the manner in which the Election Commission allegedly exercised its powers under CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The petition, filed by Bihar-based petitioner Rakesh Kumar Singh, questions whether powers constitutionally vested in the Election Commission as a multi-member body could be exercised individually by the CEC.
The petition relies, among other things, on the reported 14 objections raised by Election Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh told the Supreme Court that the statutory framework envisages decisions by the multi-member Commission through unanimity or majority.
The Court agreed to list the matter next week. This does not mean that the Supreme Court has found the allegations to be true; it means the petition has been accepted for listing and will be examined by the Court.
The controversy is now bigger than one CEC
The developments raise questions about the institutional functioning of India's election machinery.
At the heart of the matter are several separate questions:
1. Was the Commission functioning collectively?
The Constitution establishes the Election Commission as an institutional body. The Supreme Court petition specifically questions whether the CEC exercised powers that should have been exercised collectively.
2. Could Form 6 be changed without the required legal process?
Two Election Commissioners reportedly argued that the statutory form could not be altered without amending the relevant rules.
3. Who should control electoral data?
The two Commissioners raised concerns about the increasing centralisation of electoral-roll access and the administration of ECINet.
4. Why were objections repeatedly raised?
Fourteen formal objections over approximately 10 months, according to the Indian Express investigation, indicate that the disagreements were not an isolated incident. The ECI, however, says such exchanges are part of institutional deliberation and that important decisions had unanimous approval.
What remains unanswered?
The ECI's September 26 response addressed several issues and announced corrective measures. However, The Indian Express reported that questions concerning Form 6 and appeals involving voter inclusion in West Bengal remained unresolved or insufficiently addressed.
That leaves several questions for the Commission and, potentially, the courts:
- What precisely happened when the two Election Commissioners objected to the Form 6 changes?
- Under whose authority were the changes implemented?
- Why did the disputed Form 6 provision remain online after objections were recorded?
- Who authorised appeals against voters who had been restored?
- What safeguards govern central access to electoral-roll databases?
- Were decisions concerning the electoral roll taken unanimously, by majority, or through administrative directions outside the full Commission?
- And, ultimately, did any of these administrative decisions result in eligible citizens being unlawfully excluded from the electoral process?
These are factual and legal questions that require documentary answers rather than political assertions.
The road ahead
The controversy surrounding Gyanesh Kumar is now unfolding on three separate fronts.
First is the institutional front, where the ECI has attempted to demonstrate unity through its September 26 meeting and nine announced measures.
Second is the political front, where Opposition parties are demanding accountability and questioning the neutrality of the poll panel. Congress's Working Committee on September 29 demanded Kumar's resignation amid the continuing SIR controversy.
Third is the legal front, with the Supreme Court preparing to examine the challenge to the manner in which the ECI has exercised its powers.
For now, the most significant fact emerging from the Ritika Chopra investigation is not a proven corruption charge against the CEC. It is the revelation of a deep and unusually documented disagreement within India's top election body over voter registration, voter deletions and control of electoral technology.
Whether those disagreements reveal unlawful decision-making, administrative failure, or simply an internal institutional dispute will ultimately depend on the records, the applicable law and the judicial scrutiny that is now beginning.
BJP Stands Exposed Again! 🔥
Despite everything being out in open, BJP spokesperson defends CEC Gyanesh Kumar. pic.twitter.com/Xbp5sQkUPT
— Cockroach Janta Party - CJP (@Cockroachisback) September 25, 2026
BlazeBulletin's Take
BJP Stands Exposed Again! 🔥
Despite everything being out in open, BJP spokesperson defends CEC Gyanesh Kumar. pic.twitter.com/Xbp5sQkUPT
The controversy deserves scrutiny without reducing it to either a political attack or an unquestioned indictment of the Election Commission.
The Indian Express investigation is significant because it is based on formal internal records and objections reportedly made by two sitting Election Commissioners, rather than merely political allegations.
At the same time, allegations of "corruption", "vote theft" or deliberate disenfranchisement should not be presented as established facts unless supported by findings from an appropriate investigative or judicial authority.
The immediate issue is therefore institutional accountability and transparency: Were the decisions concerning India's electoral rolls taken according to the law and through the collective mechanism required of the Election Commission?
With the Supreme Court now agreeing to examine a related petition, that question is likely to receive considerably more attention in the days ahead.
By BlazeBulletin News Desk
Pics Courtesy: YT Still Images
Updated: September 29, 2026
0 Comments