DMK demands removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar; return to paper ballots

The DMK is challenging both election administration and voting technology. It demands the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging that he oversaw deletions during the Special Intensive Revision, despite objections from the other two Election Commissioners. The party says this has weakened public confidence.

The party also wants the Special Intensive Revision cancelled before the Assembly elections. It has decided to petition the President and wants future elections to use the existing electoral rolls. On voting machines, the DMK cites alleged differences between EVM totals and VVPAT slips. It says counting VVPAT slips and returning to paper ballots would restore trust.

These are political demands, not reported decisions by election authorities. The DMK says the revision must protect voting rights, allow enough time to add or delete names, and avoid excluding eligible voters. It also supports protests by a students’ organisation and the Cockroach Janata Party.

The Election Commission of India is India’s independent constitutional authority for managing elections. It oversees electoral rolls, election schedules, candidate processes, polling, counting, and the announcement of results. Its purpose is to help elections operate according to law and to protect the fairness of the process.

The Chief Election Commissioner is the commission’s principal office-holder. The CEC helps direct the institution, coordinate election administration, and take part in decisions made by the commission. The article identifies Gyanesh Kumar as the current CEC and says the DMK accused him of approving voter deletions during the SIR.

The article does not explain the commission’s full legal structure. It reports that the CEC allegedly overrode objections from two other Election Commissioners. That reported disagreement matters because the DMK says the commission must act impartially and retain public confidence.

A Special Intensive Revision is a thorough review of an electoral roll. Election officials check whether entries are accurate and whether listed voters remain eligible in the relevant constituency. The process can correct details, add eligible people, and remove duplicate, shifted, deceased, or otherwise ineligible entries under the applicable rules.

The key mechanism is verification. Officials and voters may be asked to provide information or documents, and people can seek corrections or additions through the prescribed process. Names can be removed when authorities determine that an entry should no longer remain, but affected voters need a meaningful chance to respond or appeal.

The article does not describe the SIR’s precise procedures or deadlines. It reports that the DMK wants the entire exercise cancelled before the Assembly elections and insists that adequate time be given for adding and deleting names. Its concern is that eligible voters could lose their voting rights.

India’s Election Commission normally consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. Together, they form the commission that makes important decisions about election administration. This three-member structure allows major questions to be considered collectively rather than left entirely to one office-holder.

The article says the DMK alleges that Gyanesh Kumar oversaw voter deletions during the SIR while overriding objections from the other two commissioners. If that allegation is accurate, it would show disagreement at the top of the institution over a decision directly affecting voters. The commissioners’ views and the decision-making record would therefore become important.

Disagreement does not automatically prove that a decision is invalid or unfair. However, it can trigger demands for explanation, review, or investigation. In this case, the DMK is demanding Kumar’s removal and an inquiry, while saying that the Election Commission’s failure to function impartially is reducing public confidence.

An electronic voting machine records a voter’s selected candidate electronically. A connected Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail unit produces a paper slip showing the selected choice. The voter can view that slip briefly through a window before it is stored securely, without taking it away. The electronic record is used for the main count, while the paper record provides an audit trail.

The two systems work together through comparison. Election officials can count selected VVPAT slips and compare their candidate totals with the corresponding EVM results. The paper record can therefore serve as an independent check, although the exact counting rules are set by election authorities and law.

The article says the DMK alleges discrepancies between EVM votes and VVPAT slips. It argues that VVPAT slips should be counted and that paper ballots should return. The article does not establish that a discrepancy occurred or explain its size; it reports the party’s claim and demand.

If an eligible voter’s name is deleted, that person may be unable to vote even when they meet all requirements. The harm is immediate: a voter loses access to the election unless the entry is restored in time. Large or unexplained deletions can also make communities feel excluded and raise questions about whether the roll was prepared fairly.

An unresolved difference between EVM totals and VVPAT records creates a separate problem. Voters may doubt whether the electronic result reflects the choices recorded on paper. Audits, recounts, clear procedures, and public explanations can help determine whether a difference is an error, a counting issue, or something more serious.

The article reports the DMK’s concern that public confidence is already eroding. It wants the SIR cancelled, existing rolls used, and paper ballots restored. These demands show the possible political consequence: disputes may shift from individual corrections to wider challenges to election legitimacy.

Paper ballots have long been used because voters can mark a physical choice that officials later count. They create a straightforward paper record and make the voting act visibly tangible. Their weaknesses include slower counting, handling and storage demands, unclear marks, and the possibility of human counting or ballot-management errors.

India adopted electronic voting machines to make voting and counting more efficient and to reduce problems linked to invalid or unclear marks. An EVM records the selected choice electronically. VVPAT adds a printed slip, allowing voters to see a paper confirmation and giving officials material for audits or comparisons.

The trade-off is between speed and physical verifiability. EVMs can simplify counting, but confidence depends on secure procedures, testing, audits, and transparent oversight. Paper ballots offer a direct record but bring logistical burdens. The article presents the DMK’s preference for paper ballots, while reporting its concern about alleged EVM–VVPAT discrepancies.