Stalin urges Murmu to initiate action against Gyanesh Kumar

M.K. Stalin is asking President Droupadi Murmu to act on a memorandum seeking action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. He says the Election Commission needs institutional protection after two Election Commissioners allegedly said decisions were taken without their knowledge and called those decisions unauthorised and illegal.

Stalin wants the President to refer the memorandum to both Houses of Parliament. He also asks her to obtain information from the Prime Minister under Article 78 and advise the Centre to facilitate the parliamentary process. Pending its conclusion, he wants Kumar prevented from exercising the Commission’s powers.

The request follows the deletion of 97.37 lakh electors from Tamil Nadu’s rolls during the 2025 SIR. Stalin also wants the 2026 rolls avoided for future elections and by-elections in Tamil Nadu. He seeks restoration of the pre-SIR rolls and cancellation of the SIR nationwide.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a thorough exercise to review electoral rolls. Election authorities check entries, identify records that may no longer qualify, and prepare an updated list. Its purpose is to improve the accuracy of the voter register before elections. Because inclusion determines who can vote, the process can directly affect political participation.

The article describes an SIR conducted in Tamil Nadu during 2025. Stalin says 97.37 lakh electors were deleted during that exercise. He argues that revisions should provide enough time, individual notice, and an opportunity for every elector to be heard before removal. These safeguards are meant to help correct errors and prevent wrongful deletions.

Stalin is asking for the 2025 SIR to be cancelled in every State. He also wants Tamil Nadu’s pre-SIR rolls restored for elections and by-elections. Future revisions, he says, should follow the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The figure at the centre of Stalin’s memorandum is 97.37 lakh deleted electors in Tamil Nadu. In the Indian numbering system, one lakh equals 100,000, so 97.37 lakh equals 9,737,000 people. In ordinary terms, that is nearly one crore electors, or almost ten million names removed from the rolls.

The scale matters because electoral rolls determine who is registered to vote. A deletion can prevent an otherwise eligible person from voting unless the error is identified and corrected. Stalin argues that the removals occurred in Tamil Nadu and other States on a scale that affected constituencies and political parties. The article presents this as his allegation.

He wants the final rolls prepared after the SIR set aside in Tamil Nadu. He has urged that pre-SIR rolls be restored for future elections and by-elections. He also seeks cancellation of the SIR across all States and stronger procedural safeguards for future revisions.

Stalin’s concern is that removing large numbers of electors can change the electorate in particular constituencies. If eligible voters disappear from the rolls, they may be unable to vote. That can alter the participation base on which election results depend. The issue therefore reaches beyond individual records and affects confidence in the electoral process.

He alleges that deletions in Tamil Nadu and several other States happened in a manner and on a scale that skewed results in several constituencies. He further claims the changes weakened one political party and strengthened another. The article does not identify those parties or provide constituency-level figures, so these points are presented as Stalin’s allegations.

Stalin says the Election Commission’s reputation belongs to the people of India and needs protection. He wants the post-SIR rolls in Tamil Nadu set aside and the pre-SIR rolls restored for elections and by-elections. He also seeks cancellation of the SIR nationwide and safeguards in future revisions.

The process described in the article begins with Stalin’s memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu. He asks her to refer it to both Houses of Parliament, where the matter could be considered through the parliamentary process. He also asks her to seek information from the Prime Minister under Article 78 of the Constitution and advise the Centre to facilitate that process.

The article does not set out every procedural step or name a parliamentary vote. In general constitutional practice, removal of a Chief Election Commissioner is linked to the procedure used for removing a Supreme Court judge, requiring parliamentary action on specified grounds. That broader mechanism is not detailed in the article, so the specific request here is best understood as seeking parliamentary consideration of the memorandum.

Stalin additionally wants Kumar prevented from exercising the Commission’s powers until the process concludes. He argues that this is necessary because two Election Commissioners reportedly described certain decisions as unauthorised and illegal. The President’s requested role is therefore both procedural and interim, in Stalin’s proposal.

If the 2026 electoral rolls were set aside, Tamil Nadu would not use those post-SIR lists for future elections and by-elections. Stalin wants the pre-SIR rolls restored instead. The practical effect would be to return to the earlier register while the disputed revision was rejected, helping avoid elections being conducted on rolls he considers unreliable.

The key mechanism would be replacing the 2026 rolls with the pre-SIR rolls for electoral use. Stalin also asks that the final rolls prepared after the SIR be set aside. His proposal is tied to his allegation that the deletions were made on a scale that skewed results and affected the balance between political parties.

The article does not specify how long the pre-SIR rolls would remain in force or describe an implementation timetable. It says Stalin wants future revisions to follow the 1950 Representation of the People Act and the 1960 Registration of Electors Rules. He also wants adequate time, individual notice, and a hearing opportunity for every elector.

Electoral rolls are the basic register for democratic participation. They identify the people entitled to vote, so errors can exclude eligible citizens from an election. Accurate and independent rolls also help ensure that results reflect the voters who should have been able to participate. That is why disputes over large-scale deletions can threaten confidence in the entire electoral system.

Individual notice gives an elector a chance to learn that their entry may be removed. A hearing provides a way to challenge an error and present relevant information before deletion. Stalin says future revisions should allow adequate time and these safeguards for every elector. He wants the process governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

The article links these protections to the Election Commission’s reputation, built over seven decades. Stalin argues that this reputation belongs to the people, not any individual office-holder. He is seeking cancellation of the SIR and restoration of Tamil Nadu’s pre-SIR rolls while the dispute is addressed.