The coordinated press conferences followed Gandhi’s demand that Kumar resign or be removed after disclosures that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised repeated objections over decisions linked to electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision process.
The Bharatiya Janata Party said its chief ministers challenged what it described as baseless attacks on the Election Commission and accused Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders of attempting to discredit constitutional institutions. In states not governed by the BJP or its National Democratic Alliance partners, state party presidents or opposition leaders addressed the issue.
Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis accused Gandhi of seeking to create distrust in institutions, while Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said opposition parties had spread confusion over the revision of electoral rolls. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also attacked the INDIA bloc and demanded an apology from Gandhi.
The political mobilisation came as Congress general secretary K C Venugopal held a virtual meeting with more than 1,000 District Congress Committee presidents to prepare for demonstrations demanding Kumar’s removal. Congress units have been asked to organise district-level protests, widening an opposition campaign that has focused on the independence and internal functioning of the poll body.
Gandhi on Thursday cited the reported objections of Sandhu and Joshi while renewing his allegations of “vote chori”, or vote theft. He accused Kumar of committing “treason” and alleged that decisions affecting elections had been taken despite objections within the three-member commission. He also alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah were shielding the CEC. The BJP has rejected those charges.
The controversy followed disclosure of at least 14 formal objections raised over 10 months by Sandhu and Joshi concerning electoral-roll administration, voter registration and deletion, appeals involving restored voters and oversight of the commission’s technology systems. Some objections questioned whether actions had been taken without approval of the full commission.
The Election Commission has responded that differences expressed during its internal deliberations were resolved and that final decisions were unanimous. It said the Special Intensive Revision order covering states and Union Territories had been approved unanimously and rejected suggestions that the commissioners had been excluded from the decision-making process.
Under the 2023 law governing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, the commission’s business should, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously. Where commissioners differ, decisions are determined by the majority. The provision has become central to the dispute because the reported objections concerned whether several administrative steps had received collective approval.
Sandhu and Joshi have not publicly joined the political dispute. Their written objections, however, have given opposition parties fresh grounds to question Kumar’s handling of the commission. The poll body has maintained that internal disagreement should not be equated with dissent from final decisions reached by all three commissioners.
Congress has broadened its demand beyond Kumar’s resignation, seeking scrutiny of decisions taken during his tenure and arguing that the disclosures warrant investigation. BJP leaders have countered that the Election Commission’s clarifications answer the questions raised and accused the opposition of targeting the institution after electoral setbacks.
The confrontation has also drawn other opposition parties. Several INDIA bloc constituents have demanded accountability from the CEC, while discussions among opposition leaders are expected to continue over a coordinated response. Their allegations remain contested by the Election Commission and the BJP, and no finding has established Gandhi’s broader claim that election outcomes were rigged.
