Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla has said any fresh motion seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar will be examined according to established parliamentary rules and procedures. His remarks on October 22 came as Opposition parties intensified protests demanding Kumar’s removal over alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Opposition has already made two attempts to initiate removal proceedings: notices in the first attempt were rejected by both Houses, while those submitted during the second attempt remain pending in the Rajya Sabha. Opposition parties have accused Kumar of exercising the Election Commission’s collective powers unilaterally, while the ECI has maintained that its decisions, including those related to SIR, were unanimous.
Due Process Assured
Responding to questions about the possibility of another removal motion, Birla said, “If any fresh notice comes, we will see and examine it accordingly under rules and procedures.” He added that the CEC’s removal has a prescribed process similar to that followed for the removal of a Supreme Court judge and that the procedure would be followed if the Opposition formally brings another motion.
Under the constitutional framework, a CEC can be removed only through a parliamentary process based on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with both Houses required to approve the removal with the prescribed special majority.
The immediate controversy, however, goes beyond the proposed removal motion. The Opposition has been protesting against the SIR, arguing that the exercise could exclude eligible voters from electoral rolls and questioning the transparency of decisions taken by the poll panel. The protests have intensified over the past fortnight, with opposition parties also approaching President Droupadi Murmu over their demand for Kumar’s removal.
Questions Within ECI
The Opposition’s allegations gained further traction following an investigation by The Indian Express, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months over decisions and orders they said were taken without their knowledge. Their concerns reportedly covered issues including changes to Form 6 for new voters, access to electoral-roll databases, voter additions and deletions, and appeals relating to the SIR process.
The report also said the two commissioners questioned the “gradual centralisation” of the electoral-roll database and raised concerns about whether statutory officials retained adequate access to the systems used to maintain voter records.
In one instance, the investigation reported that 97 voters in Goa who had been found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers were unable to be restored to the final roll because the software did not allow the required changes to be recorded in time. These claims remain part of the wider dispute and should not be treated as independently established findings.
The Election Commission, in response to the investigation, did not dispute the existence, dates or contents of the 14 notes, but described them as part of its internal decision-making process. The ECI maintained that all decisions taken during the period were unanimous and said its electoral-roll software operates under strict security protocols, with Electoral Registration Officers and District Election Officers continuing to exercise their statutory powers.
SIR Fuels Dispute
The SIR began in Bihar in June 2025 and has since expanded across multiple states and Union Territories. According to The Indian Express, more than 13 crore names were excluded from draft electoral rolls during the exercise across 30 States and Union Territories. However, these were draft-roll exclusions, rather than a permanent declaration that all those voters had lost their voting rights; eligible people were able to seek inclusion through the prescribed process.
The controversy has also entered the courts, with the Supreme Court examining challenges concerning aspects of the SIR and the Election Commission’s functioning. Meanwhile, the Opposition is considering another removal motion against Kumar.
Any such move would first have to meet the applicable parliamentary requirements before the formal removal process could proceed. Birla’s latest statement therefore does not mean that a fresh motion has been admitted; it means that if one is formally submitted, Parliament will examine it under the applicable rules.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Election Commission is one of the institutions on which India’s democratic system depends, making public confidence in its independence, transparency and fairness essential. At the same time, serious allegations against a constitutional body must be examined through evidence, parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight rather than political confrontation alone. Birla’s assurance that any fresh removal motion will follow due process is important, but so is ensuring that concerns about electoral-roll revisions are addressed transparently and that eligible voters do not face barriers to exercising their democratic rights.
At a time when disagreement over SIR is becoming increasingly polarised, institutions and political parties have a shared responsibility to protect both electoral integrity and public trust. Do you think Parliament and the Election Commission are doing enough to address concerns over SIR while safeguarding confidence in India’s electoral process?
