The campaign demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has gathered fresh momentum, spreading from the streets of New Delhi to major Western capitals, as opposition parties, students and civil society groups intensify their challenge to the Modi regime.The Vote Chori or theft issue became an overriding political issue after the Indian Express report.
New Delhi witnessed an extraordinary opposition-led march towards the Supreme Court on October 12, with Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and prominent INDIA bloc leaders joining students, activists and citizens demanding transparency and accountability. The Opposition has also filed a joint petition seeking judicial intervention into disputed aspects of the SIR.
Meanwhile, demonstrations by Indians living abroad have taken the campaign beyond the country’s borders. On Oct. 17, members of the Indian diaspora gathered outside the statue of Mahatma Gandhi at London’s Parliament Square, carrying the Indian national flag and placards and raising slogans against the alleged erosion of democratic rights.
Dhruv Rathee, who had earlier called his Oct. 10 detention as ‘kidnapping’, had given a call to gather at the spot in a video posted on his social media channels.“We are not allowed to protest in our own country and today, the country that colonised us, we are standing in front of its parliament,” said Rathee.
Hundreds joined the gathering with the Indian flag and placards, raising slogans of “56 inch ka chota bandar…” and “Inquilaab”.Indian citizens and members of the diaspora had assembled in a foreign capital to protest against what they regarded as restrictions on democratic expression at home.
The overseas demonstrations have acquired a public profile beyond the country’s domestic political contest.Similar protests have been reported in other international centres, including Vancouver.
The expanding mobilisation has placed the ruling establishment under mounting political pressure. Yet, rather than welcoming a transparent examination of the allegations, the BJP and its wider political ecosystem have mounted a vigorous defence of Kumar, dismissing the campaign as politically motivated and an allegationof ‘Bangladesh Style’ regime change.
This has raised a question that the ruling party has yet to convincingly answer. Why is the BJP going to such lengths to defend the CEC when the opposition is demanding his resignation, rather than the resignations of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah?
For the Opposition, the demand to remove Kumar is not simply about one constitutional functionary. It is about establishing accountability for decisions that, it alleges, could affect citizens’ voting rights and the credibility of India’s electoral process.
The Exposé Changes the Political Landscape
The Sep. 23 report by The Indian Express brought to light alleged differences between Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi and CEC Gyanesh Kumar over important decisions concerning electoral administration, including the SIR. The revelations gave fresh impetus to Opposition allegations that the functioning of the Commission required closer scrutiny.
The Opposition, however, argues that the revelations have raised questions that cannot be dismissed as partisan criticism. It wants the underlying records, internal objections and decision-making processes placed in the public domain. At stake is not merely the tenure of an individual constitutional functionary.
The Election Commission has maintained that its decisions were unanimous and that differences of opinion are normal within a multi-member institution. The Opposition argues that the Commission must disclose the records necessary to establish how the disputed decisions were reached. The exclusion of 13.35 crore voters from the voter list has added urgency to these demands.
The controversy has also drawn a response from 124 former civil servants, reportedly close to the BJP-RSS ideological ecosystem, who issued an open letter on Oct. 10, defending the Election Commission and the SIR. They argued that repeated allegations of electoral manipulation without credible evidence risk undermining democratic institutions and maintained that intensive revision is necessary to maintain accurate electoral rolls.
However, critics of the pro-RSS group’s position contend that a general description of safeguards does not resolve specific allegations about the implementation of the SIR.
Delhi Becomes the Centre of Resistance
The Oct. 12 “Dilli Chalo march” towards the Supreme Court marked a significant escalation in the Opposition’s campaign. Rahul Gandhi, Kharge and leaders from several INDIA bloc parties joined the mobilisation, which brought together parliamentarians, student activists and citizens.They subsequently filed a joint petition seeking judicial intervention over disputed decisions relating to the SIR. It has asked for the production of relevant files, meeting minutes, internal notings, access logs and objections recorded by the commissioners.The petition also seeks action against those found to have violated constitutional or statutory provisions governing electoral-roll preparation and revision.
Among its other demands are the publication of booth-wise deletion data, disclosure of the reasons for individual deletions, demographic information and a reliable mechanism for restoring eligible voters’ names.The petitioners have called for an independent committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to examine the disputed decisions and audit relevant aspects of the process.
Delhi Police Under Fire
The growing protests have encountered an increasingly forceful and repressive police response in the national capital. Demonstrators, including students, young activists, women and senior political leaders, have alleged arbitrary detention, physical assault and restrictions on peaceful assembly.The police have defended their security arrangements by citing public-order requirements and restrictions around sensitive locations.Protest organisers, however, have argued that the scale of the deployment and repeated detentions were disproportionate to the peaceful nature of their demands.
The demonstrations around Jantar Mantar, India Gate and Connaught Place have become symbols of the confrontation. The mobilisation continued despite police restrictions, with young activists carrying the national flag and insisting that their campaign was intended to defend constitutional democracy.
The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) leaders Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das were arrested after protests, while founder Abhijeet Dipke and All India Students’ Association activist Neha Bora also faced repeated detention during subsequent demonstrations. Their supporters alleged that the police failed to disclose detention locations promptly and obstructed access to legal assistance. Lawyers representing Bora raised concerns about her whereabouts and alleged repeated transfers between police facilities.
The Delhi Police’s conduct during the protests has consequently become a parallel controversy, with questions being raised about the treatment of demonstrators, journalists and lawyers.
The CPI(M) has condemned the crackdown, describing the restrictions as an attack on the right to peaceful protest. It also criticised the alleged attempts to enter party premises and the detention of media personnel covering the agitation.The Supreme Court has separately examined issues arising from restrictions imposed during the protests. The legality and proportionality of particular police actions remain matters for judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court Becomes the Next Battleground
The Opposition’s decision to take the march to the Supreme Court represents a significant shift from street mobilisation to a coordinated legal challenge. The massive turnout from across the country exceeded the expectations of opposition organisers, according to their accounts, and became one of the most prominent demonstrations in the capital in recent times.
The political significance of the controversy lies in the intensity of the ruling party’s defence of the CEC. The BJP has rejected the Opposition’s accusations and sought to portray the campaign as an attempt to discredit institutions after electoral setbacks. Its supporters argue that electoral rolls require periodic revision and that the Commission must be allowed to perform its statutory responsibilities without intimidation.The Opposition counters that it is precisely because the ECI exercises such consequential powers that its decisions must withstand public scrutiny.
Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly asked why the government is defending Kumar rather than facilitating a transparent examination of the allegations.He has argued that the controversy cannot be resolved by dismissing criticism as politically motivated. At a press conference ahead of the Oct. 12 march, Gandhi said the movement would continue until the CEC resigned, the electoral system was reformed and accountability was established.The campaign, he said, was not simply a contest between the BJP and the Congress but a wider struggle over the country’s democratic future.
Gandhi’s demand that Kumar resign and turn approver has become a prominent political slogan. He has argued that the CEC should disclose what he knows about the disputed decisions and help establish accountability.The BJP’s continued defence of Kumar, it says, has only strengthened suspicions among its critics.
One of the most striking features of the agitation has been the participation of students and young activists. The CJP’s mobilisation has given the protests a distinct character, separate in some respects from conventional Opposition demonstrations. Its leaders have sought to present the campaign as a citizens’ movement focused on electoral integrity rather than the immediate electoral fortunes of political parties. The movement has also created opportunities for coordination between student organisations, civil society groups and opposition parties that do not always share the same political priorities.
Jantar Mantar
The withdrawal of Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest site has added another dimension to the controversy. Opposition groups and civil liberties advocates have condemned the decision, arguing that the removal of an established venue for demonstrations makes it harder for citizens to bring grievances directly to the attention of the political establishment.
The proposed alternative venues, including Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground, have been criticised by protesters who argue that moving demonstrations away from central political locations reduces their visibility. The comparison with the Satyagraha tradition has become a recurring theme among protesters, who argue that the use of force cannot extinguish a demand for accountability.
FIRs against Delhi Police
At Rahul Gandhi’s behest, Kerala Police registered a zero FIR on a complaint by NSUI leader Athira Vijayan regarding the alleged police assault on student protesters during the Delhi demonstration. Athira was allegedly subjected to third-degree torture by Delhi Police on Oct. 13 after being detained along with a group of protesters.
Rahul Gandhi accused Delhi Police of refusing to register an FIR over the alleged assault on student protesters by security personnel. He asserted that the police could break bones but could not break a Satyagraha.
Modi’s Lecture on Democracy Faces Fire
The controversy acquired another political dimension when Prime Minister Narendra Modi described India as the Mother of Democracy during his address to the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in New Delhi.Opposition leaders and critics were quick to contrast the Prime Minister’s remarks with the restrictions imposed on protests in the capital, including detentions, barricades and curbs on movement around key locations. They questioned the apparent contradiction between the government’s celebration of India’s democratic traditions and the difficulties faced by citizens seeking to demonstrate against the Election Commission and demand electoral accountability.
Perturbed by the growing public campaign against Gyanesh Kumar, Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh accused the Congress and the INDIA bloc of inciting anarchy and seeking a ‘Bangladesh-style’ regime change in India.
Congress spokesperson and MP Pawan Khera hit back, arguing that changing a government through elections is the Opposition’s legitimate democratic objective. Citing the 1977 general elections, when voters removed the Congress government following the Emergency, Khera questioned the BJP’s response to the protests and accused the ruling establishment of becoming increasingly intolerant of dissent.Khera said the Opposition’s “Vote Chor, Gaddi Chhod” campaign was aimed at safeguarding electoral integrity and demanding accountability, not orchestrating a coup.
Other Opposition leaders, including AAP MP Sanjay Singh and SS(UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, also maintained that seeking a change of government through elections and democratic pressure was a legitimate political exercise.