A constitutional storm is brewing over India's electoral machinery. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday, September 25, 2026, called for the immediate removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, citing what he described as revelations that two Election Commissioners had raised objections to decisions on voter registration, deletion of names, and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process — a disclosure he said strikes at the heart of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) credibility.

What the objections inside the ECI reveal

Vijayan's post draws attention to reported internal dissent within the three-member Election Commission, specifically that two Election Commissioners had flagged concerns over decisions governing how voters are registered, how names are deleted from rolls, and how the SIR is being conducted. The nature and identities of those commissioners have not been independently confirmed, but the political weight of the allegation is immediate: if true, it suggests the commission's own members were overruled or sidelined on questions that directly shape who gets to vote.

'The revelations about objections raised by two Election Commissioners over decisions concerning voter registration, deletion of names and SIR raise grave questions about the functioning of the ECI,' Vijayan wrote, demanding that the CEC be removed, the SIR be halted, voting rights of those 'wrongfully excluded' be restored, and the independence of the commission be protected.

The SIR and the battle over electoral rolls

The Special Intensive Revision process is a mechanism through which the ECI updates electoral rolls — adding new voters, correcting entries, and deleting names. Critics, predominantly from opposition parties, have long argued that intensive revision drives can disproportionately exclude certain voter segments, particularly the poor, migrants, and minorities, if not executed with adequate safeguards. These concerns are not new: disputes over roll deletions have recurred across multiple electoral cycles, with affected communities and opposition groups alleging a lack of transparency in the process.

Vijayan's post sharpens this critique into a direct accusation: that the SIR, in its current form, is being used to 'manipulate' voting rights in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the broader Sangh Parivar. The BJP-led central government has consistently rejected such characterisations of the ECI.

The constitutional framework under pressure

The Election Commission of India, established under Article 324 of the Constitution, is meant to function as an independent arbiter of electoral processes — free from executive influence. The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India overhauled the appointment process for the CEC and Election Commissioners, introducing a selection committee that includes the Chief Justice of India, precisely to insulate the body from government capture.

Yet the controversy Vijayan is amplifying suggests those structural reforms may not have fully resolved questions of independence. When a constitutional body's own members are alleged to have been outvoted on foundational electoral decisions, the legitimacy of those decisions — and of the institution itself — comes under scrutiny.

Opposition chorus and what comes next

Vijayan's intervention is part of a broader, sustained pattern in which opposition-governed states and non-BJP parties have challenged the ECI's conduct. His demands — removal of the CEC, suspension of the SIR, restoration of deleted voter names — lay down markers that other opposition leaders are likely to echo in Parliament and before the courts. Petitions before the Supreme Court or High Courts challenging the SIR's legal basis remain a distinct possibility, and any formal response from the Election Commission will be scrutinised closely.

The right to vote, Vijayan argues, 'belongs to the people of India' — and that framing is designed to place the burden of proof squarely on the institution accused of limiting it.