✨ For You
Recent
Most reacted
Most viewed
October 6, 2026 · 5 min read
It was a humid Thursday morning at the ECI’s Delhi headquarters when a throng of MPs from the INDIA bloc, armed with placards and a chorus of slogans, converged on the main gate. Their demand was simple, their tone urgent: Gyanesh Kumar, the Chief Election Commissioner, must resign.
The scene felt less like a protest and more like a rehearsal for a power play. The air was thick with the smell of incense from a nearby temple, the clatter of car horns, and the unmistakable tension of a nation watching its electoral guardian being cornered.
What many fail to see is that this is not a routine call for accountability; it is a direct assault on the institutional independence that the Constitution painstakingly built over seven decades. If the political class can dictate who sits in the chief chair of the Election Commission, the very essence of free and fair elections unravels.
Article 324 of the Constitution grants the Election Commission autonomy, shielding it from executive interference. The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and his two members enjoy security of tenure, removal only by a process akin to that for a Supreme Court judge. This design was born out of the bitter memory of the 1975 Emergency, when the then‑Chief Election Commissioner was dismissed on a whim, eroding public trust.
Gyanesh Kumar’s appointment in 2023 followed the usual collegium‑style consultation between the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the President. Since then, the Commission has overseen three major elections, including the 2024 Lok Sabha poll that recorded a voter turnout of over 70 per cent, a figure rarely matched in recent history. The numbers speak for themselves: no major allegations of vote‑rigging, no widespread reports of booth‑capturing, and a smooth conduct that even opposition parties grudgingly acknowledged.
Yet the INDIA bloc’s march is predicated on a handful of alleged “irregularities” that have never been substantiated in a court of law. The narrative is being spun on social media, where a single tweet can amplify a rumor into a perceived scandal.
First, the alleged grievances –‑ a delayed filing of an affidavit, a perceived bias in the scheduling of by‑elections –‑ are procedural matters that the Commission’s own grievance redressal mechanisms can address. The ECI has a dedicated complaints cell that routinely handles such issues without resorting to the drastic step of ousting its chief.
Second, the political calculus is transparent. The INDIA bloc, still reeling from a disappointing performance in the recent state elections, seeks a scapegoat to deflect criticism. By targeting the CEC, they hope to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming 2026 Lok Sabha schedule, buying time to regroup.
Third, the precedent it sets is dangerous. Imagine a future where every opposition coalition, after a loss, mobilises its MPs to the ECI demanding resignations. The Commission would become a revolving door, its members forever fearing the next parliamentary march.
India’s electoral machinery is a marvel of logistics: deploying over 1 crore polling staff, printing billions of ballot papers, and coordinating a network of more than 8 lakh polling stations. The confidence of voters in this system is fragile. A perception that the CEC can be removed at the whim of a parliamentary majority erodes that confidence.
Moreover, international observers, from the Commonwealth to the European Union, routinely assess India’s elections. Their reports influence foreign investment decisions and diplomatic goodwill. A headline about “politicians demanding the resignation of the Election Commissioner” does not sit well on a global stage, especially when it hints at institutional weakening.
Finally, the youth vote –‑ a demographic that turned out in record numbers in 2024 –‑ is increasingly savvy about democratic norms. When they see their elected representatives treating the Election Commission as a political lever, disillusionment can turn into apathy, a far more lethal threat than any single procedural misstep.
The strongest objection is that no public office should be above scrutiny. Critics point to reports that Kumar’s office allegedly delayed action on a complaint concerning the use of a government‑run media channel for campaign propaganda. They argue that a resignation would restore faith.
While accountability is non‑negotiable, the mechanism matters. A parliamentary motion, a judicial inquiry, or a transparent audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) would serve the purpose without compromising the Commission’s independence. Demanding resignation before any formal inquiry is tantamount to a verdict before the trial, violating the principle of natural justice that the Constitution itself enshrines for high‑ranking officials.
First, the ECI should immediately commission an independent review of the specific complaints, publishing the findings within a fortnight. Transparency will undercut the narrative that the bloc is merely playing political chess.
Second, the Parliament must respect the constitutional process for removal. Any motion to that effect should be debated in a joint session, with a two‑thirds majority, and must be accompanied by a detailed report from a judicial committee. This high bar ensures that removal is a last resort, not a political tool.
Third, civil society and the media have a duty to rise above the sensationalism. Fact‑checking organisations should verify each allegation, and reputable newspapers must resist the lure of click‑bait headlines that merely echo the march’s demands.
Finally, citizens must remember that democracy is not a spectator sport. When the crowd outside the ECI’s gate chants “Resign now!”, the onlooker in the next polling booth must ask: who will safeguard my vote if the very institution that protects it can be dismissed on a whim?
India stands at a crossroads. Either we let the political class dictate the fate of the Election Commission, turning it into a puppet, or we reaffirm the constitutional safeguards that have kept our elections credible for over seven decades. The choice is clear: protect the independence of the CEC, or watch the very foundation of our democracy wobble.
No comments yet. Be the first!