A sitting Chief Minister stood shoulder-to-shoulder with opposition protesters at Freedom Park, Bengaluru, on Saturday, 26 September 2026 — and what he said from there amounted to one of the most direct political attacks on the Election Commission of India in recent memory. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah joined the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) demonstration against the functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI), demanding the immediate removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and calling for a criminal investigation against him.

Freedom Park protest: the Congress signal to Delhi

The Bengaluru protest is part of a nationwide agitation coordinated by the Indian National Congress, rallying behind Rahul Gandhi's sustained challenge to the ECI's independence. In Karnataka, the demonstration was held under the leadership of KPCC President B.K. Hariprasad, with multiple political parties and organisations joining in. Siddaramaiah framed the protest not as a party affair but as a constitutional imperative, declaring: 'The autonomy of the Election Commission and the integrity of our constitutional democracy cannot be compromised.'

The trigger is a set of media reports — which the research block flags as unverified from established sources — alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi have raised written objections on at least 14 occasions over the past 10 months to decisions taken within the Commission. The reported disputes involve voter inclusion, deletion of names from electoral rolls, changes to Form 6, and the management of electoral data. Siddaramaiah's post cites these reports directly, calling them 'extremely serious' for a three-member constitutional body whose two other members are on the record dissenting from its chief.

Article 324 and the President's chair

The constitutional argument at the heart of the protest is precise. Article 324 of the Indian Constitution sets a high bar for the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner — identical to the process for removing a Supreme Court judge — while the removal of other Election Commissioners requires a recommendation from the CEC. Siddaramaiah invoked this clause to argue that the President of India must intervene immediately and initiate the constitutional process, given what he characterised as the CEC's 'authoritarian' conduct.

He was unambiguous about consequences: 'In my view, Gyanesh Kumar has no right to continue in that office even for a moment. His actions amount to a betrayal of the Constitution and warrant criminal investigation.' The demand has three prongs — removal from office, registration of a criminal case, and an independent, impartial inquiry.

Rahul Gandhi's 2025 letter and the apology demand

Siddaramaiah traced the political sequence back to Rahul Gandhi's letter to the Election Commission — reported but unverified in established sources — allegedly written in 2025 raising concerns about vote theft and manipulation of electoral rolls. He noted that CEC Gyanesh Kumar had, in response, demanded that Gandhi apologise to the nation. The Chief Minister's pointed observation: now that two serving Election Commissioners have themselves reportedly objected to Commission decisions, the question of accountability has swung squarely back to the CEC's chair.

The broader Congress argument — repeated through multiple election cycles — is that the Election Commission of India, a body Siddaramaiah anchors in the legacy of Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's constitutional vision, has drifted toward alignment with the ruling BJP. The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which revised ECI appointment procedures, has itself been contested by opposition parties on grounds of executive overreach.

Modi, the '75-year rule', and the protest's sharper edge

Siddaramaiah's post ended with the protest's sharpest line. He alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'did not become Prime Minister through a fair electoral process, but through vote theft' — a claim the Congress has made repeatedly but which remains politically contested and legally unproven. He also invoked the informal 'retirement at 75' norm — applied to senior leaders in various parties — noting that Modi, having crossed that age, appears to have been exempted from the standard applied to others. Both salvos signal that this protest is as much about 2027 and beyond as it is about internal ECI processes today.

Whether the President responds, whether the Supreme Court is petitioned under Article 324, or whether the ECI issues a rebuttal — those are the three dominoes to watch. The protest has been filed. The constitutional clock is now ticking.