Full Breakdown
Former Home Secretary R.K. Singh Accuses CEC Gyanesh Kumar of Illegalities in Nationwide Voter-Roll Revision
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event: Allegations Over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)
On September 28, 2026, retired IAS officer and former Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh posted an open letter on X accusing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of “blatantly illegal” conduct in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Singh says the CEC removed the names of all voters entered by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) after 2003 without enquiry, show-cause notice, or written reasons, and that the revised rolls were used in elections while thousands of appeals remained pending. He urges opposition parties to boycott elections until the CEC and the two Election Commissioners resign.
Background & Context
The SIR, launched in June 2025, is intended to clean electoral rolls nationwide. Under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act (1950), a “special revision” may be ordered only in specific cases, with reasons recorded in writing and limited to a constituency or part thereof. Singh argues that applying the exercise to the entire country violates this provision.
Internal dissent surfaced on September 23, 2026, when The Indian Express reported that Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected 14 times in ten months to SIR-related decisions, describing some actions as “unauthorised and illegal.”
The Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in *Lal Babu Hussain v. Electoral Registration Officer* placed the burden of proof on the authority seeking to disqualify a voter, a principle Singh says the CEC ignored.
Data & Statistics
- Singh estimates 13 crore names (? 13 % of the electorate) have been deleted through the SIR.
- In West Bengal, 16 lakh voters validated by EROs were not entered because appeals were filed.
- In Goa, 97 voters found valid by the ERO remained excluded.
- Singh claims that of the appeals decided so far, 90 % of the voters left out were later found to be valid.
Official Statements & Responses
The panel noted that the old version of Form 6 will be used when the SIR is not underway, and that the Supreme Court had upheld the legality of the SIR while clarifying that the Commission cannot decide on a person’s citizenship.
Commissioners Sandhu and Joshi have publicly objected to the centralisation of the ERONet database and the denial of access to statutory officers, warning that such moves could undermine the statutory role of EROs under Section 22 of the Act.
Criticism & Opposition
Singh argues that the new appendix to Form 6—requiring applicants to cite the serial number of their parents in the 2003 roll—disadvantages young voters lacking access to historic rolls. He also questions bulk objections filed through Form 7, asking who filed them and how they were processed when signatories did not appear.
He concludes that an impeachment of the CEC would be futile without sufficient numbers, and instead urges the opposition to file criminal cases and to demand that future Election Commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a sitting Supreme Court judge, as prescribed by the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment.
What’s Next
Singh has asked opposition parties to unite in refusing to contest any election until the CEC and the two Election Commissioners resign and successors are selected under the prior system. He also calls for criminal proceedings against the CEC. The Election Commission has not yet issued a formal response, and the issue is expected to surface in political debates ahead of the next national elections.