Former Kerala Chief Electoral Officer Teeka Ram Meena, a retired IAS officer, has alleged that Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar acted arbitrarily while pushing through changes related to Form 6 — the document used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls — bypassing the collective decision-making process mandated by the three-member Election Commission of India (ECI).

What Meena Alleged

Speaking on Saturday, 26 September 2026, from Thiruvananthapuram, Meena said the changes made to Form 6 were contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Election Rules of 1961. He argued that alterations with a statutory bearing could not legally be introduced through a mere executive order.

'The Election Commission is taking independent decisions. With three members, the majority view has to be taken. But Gyanesh acted arbitrarily,' Meena said.

He further alleged: 'Transparency was flouted by Gyanesh,' adding that the manner in which the changes were introduced marked a departure from the ECI's established functioning.

Letters to Fellow Batchmates

Meena confirmed he had formally written to both CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioner Sukhbir Singh Sandhu — both of whom are his IAS batchmates — flagging his concerns. He stressed that the other two Election Commissioners had every right to place on record their differences with the CEC, and that failing to do so would itself be a breach of constitutional duty.

'I wrote to both my batchmates pointing out these issues,' Meena said, underscoring that the matter involved not merely a clash of opinion but the interpretation and application of statutory provisions.

Commission Must Resist All Pressure, Including From PM

In a pointed remark, Meena said the Election Commission, as an independent constitutional body, must resist pressure from any quarter — including from the Prime Minister. 'The Election Commission just cannot succumb to any sort of pressure, even from the Prime Minister, as they are given full immunity,' he said.

This is a notable escalation in public discourse around the ECI's independence, as critics have long argued that the appointment process for Election Commissioners leaves the body vulnerable to executive influence. Notably, this is not the first time the internal functioning of the Election Commission has drawn scrutiny — differences within multi-member benches have surfaced periodically since the panel was expanded to three members.

Broader Context: ECI Under Scrutiny

Meena's remarks come at a time when the three-member Election Commission has been under intense public and judicial scrutiny over reported differences within the panel, particularly regarding the procedure for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls. Critics argue that unilateral changes to voter registration processes — if proven — could have significant downstream effects on electoral integrity ahead of state and general elections.

The Election Commission has not issued a public response to Meena's allegations as of the time of this report. How the Commission addresses questions around internal majority-rule and statutory compliance is likely to shape public confidence in the poll body going forward.