Kharge moves six charges against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, says 'no personal enmity' | LIVE

The INDIA bloc held a symbolic public impeachment programme against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 31, 2026. The event began at Mallikarjun Kharge’s New Delhi residence, with former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar opening the proceedings. Kharge was to move a motion calling for the CEC’s removal. The action mattered because opposition parties said the election process and constitutional voting rights were under threat.

Six charges were displayed at the event. They alleged that the CEC conspired to steal elections, deleted 13.2 crore voters, rewrote Form 6 without Parliament, seized electoral rolls through ECINET, excluded the other two Election Commissioners, and acted at Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s behest. These were allegations made by the bloc, not established findings in the article.

Kharge said the bloc had no personal enmity with Gyanesh Kumar and wanted the Election Commission to work impartially. He said the campaign defended genuine voters rather than “infiltrators.” The programme was symbolic, while a larger INDIA bloc rally was planned at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan on November 1, with traffic restrictions announced.

The Election Commission of India is an independent constitutional authority responsible for supervising elections and maintaining the electoral process. Its work includes preparing electoral rolls and overseeing elections according to constitutional and legal rules. The Chief Election Commissioner, or CEC, leads the Commission and represents its central authority in major decisions. The source article does not provide the Commission’s full legal structure, so this explanation uses established constitutional knowledge.

In this controversy, Gyanesh Kumar is the CEC named by the INDIA bloc. Opposition leaders accused him of helping undermine elections and demanded his removal. Their six displayed charges included alleged vote theft, deletion of 13.2 crore voters, changes to Form 6, control of electoral rolls through ECINET, and excluding the other two Election Commissioners. These remain political allegations in the supplied report.

The Commission’s independence matters because voters need electoral rolls and election administration to be handled fairly. Kharge said the INDIA bloc had no personal enmity with Kumar and wanted the EC to work impartially. BJP MP Sambit Patra defended the SIR process and voter registration arrangements, showing the dispute remains politically contested.

Mallikarjun Kharge alleged that 13.2 crore voters had been deleted from India’s electoral rolls. In Indian numbering, one crore equals ten million, so 13.2 crore equals 132 million. The figure is presented in the article as one of six charges displayed during the INDIA bloc’s symbolic public impeachment of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. It is therefore an allegation made at a political event, not an independently verified figure in the supplied text.

The alleged deletions matter because electoral rolls determine who is recognised as an eligible voter. If names disappear, affected people may be unable to participate unless their records are restored or their inclusion is approved again. Kharge linked the claim to accusations that the CEC conspired to steal elections. He also said Article 326’s guarantee of universal adult franchise was under serious threat.

The article does not state India’s total electorate, so it cannot establish what percentage 13.2 crore represents. BJP MP Sambit Patra defended the registration process and urged people whose names were missing to submit Form 6. The disagreement therefore centres on both the scale of alleged deletions and the remedy for affected voters.

A Special Intensive Revision is a detailed exercise to check, update and correct electoral rolls. It can involve identifying eligible voters, removing incorrect entries and helping genuine voters get included. The supplied article does not give a full procedural definition, so this explanation uses established election-administration knowledge. It shows why SIR matters: electoral rolls determine who can exercise the vote.

The political dispute concerns how the process is being used and whether voters are being wrongly left out. The INDIA bloc displayed a charge alleging that 13.2 crore voters were deleted and said the process threatened universal adult franchise under Article 326. BJP MP Sambit Patra defended SIR and explained ASDD categories used to identify voters missing from electoral rolls.

Patra also said people whose names were absent should submit Form 6. He maintained that only Indian citizens should vote and that an added declaration did not change Form 6 itself. The current reality is a sharp disagreement: opposition leaders describe SIR as part of alleged vote theft, while the BJP presents registration and checking procedures as safeguards. The article gives no independent ruling on the claims.

Form 6 is the application used to request inclusion of a person’s name on an electoral roll. In this dispute, it is the route BJP MP Sambit Patra recommended for people whose names were missing. He said a declaration form had been added, but Form 6 itself had not changed. The article presents the form as part of the voter-registration process, not as proof that a disputed deletion was justified.

Patra also explained ASDD categories used during SIR to identify voters missing from electoral rolls. The supplied text does not spell out what each letter means, so the categories can only be described here as tracking labels in that process. Their key mechanism is identification: officials use the categories to flag missing voters, while affected people can seek inclusion through Form 6.

This creates two competing messages. The BJP says the process protects the rule that only Indian citizens should vote and offers a way to correct missing names. Opposition leaders argue that the broader SIR exercise has threatened genuine voters and alleged mass deletions. The article does not state how many people used Form 6 or how individual applications were decided.

If a person’s name is wrongly removed from the electoral roll, that person may not be allowed to vote at the polling station because election officials use the roll to verify eligible voters. This is a general feature of electoral administration; the supplied article does not describe a specific case or final remedy. The practical consequence is exclusion from voting unless the record is corrected.

The article identifies Form 6 as the proposed route for people whose names are missing. BJP MP Sambit Patra urged such people to submit it and said the form itself remained unchanged, although a declaration had been added. He also discussed ASDD categories used to identify voters missing from electoral rolls during SIR. These mechanisms are intended to connect missing names with a registration or correction request.

The political stakes are high because Kharge alleged that 13.2 crore voters were deleted. He said Article 326’s guarantee of universal adult franchise was under serious threat. Patra defended the process and said only Indian citizens should vote. The article does not say how quickly Form 6 applications are processed or guarantee that every application succeeds.

Article 326 of India’s Constitution guarantees universal adult franchise. In simple terms, eligible adult citizens should be able to participate in elections rather than having voting rights limited by wealth, status or social position. The article quotes Mallikarjun Kharge saying this guarantee was under serious threat. The source does not detail every qualification under Article 326, so this explanation focuses on its central principle.

An independent election authority matters because it oversees the systems that turn this principle into practice. It manages electoral rolls and election procedures, while the Chief Election Commissioner leads the Election Commission. If names are wrongly removed or one political side influences administration, eligible citizens may lose a meaningful opportunity to vote. That is why the INDIA bloc demanded impartiality from the EC.

The current dispute shows the constitutional principle being tested politically. Kharge accused Gyanesh Kumar of acting against the Constitution and alleged mass deletions. Patra defended SIR and the registration process. The article offers competing claims, not a final legal determination. Its forward implication is that confidence in electoral rolls and the EC’s impartiality will remain central to the dispute.