‘You’re not main vote-theft criminal': Rahul asks CEC Gyanesh Kumar to resign, become approver

Rahul Gandhi asked Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar to resign and become an approver. He said Kumar had committed a crime but was not the main criminal or the mind behind it. Gandhi framed resignation as a possible service to the nation and the Constitution.

The central allegation is that Kumar helped carry out what Gandhi calls “vote theft.” Gandhi said the Opposition is pursuing the people behind Kumar’s actions. He specifically claimed Kumar was forced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, home minister Amit Shah, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Mr Adani. These are allegations made by Gandhi, not findings established in the article.

Gandhi said protests would continue and that heavy security and the crackdown showed the government was protecting Kumar. The Opposition also planned to petition the Supreme Court over alleged electoral irregularities. Gandhi said Kumar could be forgiven if he resigned and provided information as an approver.

The Election Commission of India, or ECI, is India’s constitutional election authority. It administers elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Its purpose is to organize voting and protect the integrity of the electoral process.

The Chief Election Commissioner leads the Commission. The office generally has direction, supervision and control over election preparation and conduct, including electoral rolls, schedules, polling arrangements and counting procedures. The CEC works within constitutional and statutory rules, and does not personally replace every decision of the full Commission. These powers are established background knowledge; the article mainly discusses allegations involving Gyanesh Kumar.

In this dispute, the Opposition demanded Kumar’s resignation and accused him of involvement in alleged vote theft. It also sought suspension of a Special Intensive Revision and restoration of deleted voters. The Supreme Court petition could test whether election authorities followed the law, but the article does not report any ruling.

The Opposition’s memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu sought immediate restoration of 1.33 million voters it described as illegally deleted. This is the article’s largest specific figure and forms part of its challenge to the electoral process.

Rahul Gandhi separately claimed that 24 elections had been stolen. He said the alleged vote theft was already known across the country, but the President asked the delegation to provide proof. Gandhi described the President’s response as surprising because, in his account, she did not deny the allegations.

Both figures are political claims presented by the Opposition, not conclusions verified in the article. The dispute is now tied to a planned Supreme Court petition. The Opposition said it would submit a memorandum and seek intervention over the alleged irregularities, the protest crackdown and the electoral-roll revision. The article gives no independent finding confirming either figure.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a detailed exercise to check, update and correct an electoral roll. Election officials may verify voter information, add eligible citizens, remove duplicate or ineligible entries, and correct errors. The article does not define the process, so this explanation uses established election knowledge.

The voter list is the gateway to voting. If an eligible person’s name is removed, that person may be unable to cast a ballot. If inaccurate entries remain, the roll may not reflect the real electorate. For that reason, changes must follow legal safeguards and allow affected people to challenge removals. The Opposition claimed 1.33 million voters were illegally deleted and demanded their restoration.

It also sought immediate suspension of the SIR. Whether the revision was lawful is disputed. The planned Supreme Court petition could ask the judiciary to examine the process and require corrections. The article reports no court decision or verified finding on the alleged deletions.

If the Supreme Court accepts the Opposition’s petition, it could examine whether electoral-roll changes, alleged vote theft and the protest crackdown followed the law. Depending on its findings, the Court might order corrective steps, demand records, require officials to reconsider deletions or direct safeguards for future elections. The article does not predict a ruling.

The Opposition has asked for restoration of 1.33 million allegedly deleted voters, suspension of the Special Intensive Revision and changes to the election system. A court could address some or all of those requests, but it could also reject them if the legal or factual basis is insufficient. Any remedy would depend on evidence and the Court’s jurisdiction.

For now, the Opposition planned to march to the Supreme Court and file a joint petition after the Chief Justice declined a meeting. The article reports no acceptance, hearing outcome or order. Protests and political pressure were expected to continue.

The Opposition proposed several remedies beyond demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. It sought restoration of 1.33 million voters it called illegally deleted and immediate suspension of the Special Intensive Revision of the electoral roll. These measures aim to address alleged problems with voter eligibility and registration.

It also called for a return to paper ballots for all elections. In addition, it demanded repeal of assembly polls held over the past two years, citing what it described as conclusive evidence of vote theft. The delegation further sought repeal of the 2023 law providing lifelong immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and other election commissioners.

These are political demands, and the article does not say that any has been accepted. The Opposition planned to present its concerns to the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice declined a meeting. The next steps therefore depended on the petition, the Court’s response and any political or administrative action.

Independent election authorities matter because elections need an administrator trusted to apply rules fairly. Accurate voter lists matter because eligible citizens must be able to vote, while courts matter because they provide a legal route to challenge alleged wrongdoing. Together, these safeguards support representative government.

The article shows why the issue is important. The Opposition alleged that 1.33 million voters were illegally deleted and that 24 elections had been stolen. It demanded Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, suspension of the electoral-roll revision and restoration of the names. Those claims remain contested and are not independently established in the article.

Judicial review can provide a structured way to examine evidence and order lawful remedies. The Opposition planned to petition the Supreme Court after the Chief Justice declined a meeting. The article reports no ruling. Continued protests, legal scrutiny and any official response could shape public confidence in the election process.