CEC 'impeachment' event: Sena (UBT) leader takes 'Ram teri Ganga maili' swipe at BJP, CEC

The “public impeachment” is a political and symbolic programme led by the Congress and INDIA bloc at Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s residence. Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar is presiding, while opposition leaders, civil-society representatives, and citizens whose names were removed from voter lists are expected to speak. The programme seeks to publicly scrutinise Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The immediate reason is opposition anger over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. Kharge accused Kumar of helping delete voters, changing Form 6 without parliamentary oversight, and acting under the direction of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. These are allegations presented by the opposition, not established findings in the article.

The event comes one day before the INDIA bloc’s “Delhi Chalo” rally at Ramlila Maidan. Opposition leaders plan to demand Kumar’s resignation there. The programme cannot itself remove him from office, but it aims to build public pressure and highlight concerns about the Election Commission’s impartiality.

The opposition has made several serious allegations against Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s functioning during electoral-roll revision. Mallikarjun Kharge listed six charges: conspiring to steal elections, deleting 13.2 crore voters, rewriting Form 6 without Parliament’s oversight, taking control of rolls through ECINet, shutting out the other two election commissioners, and acting at the behest of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah.

The article also reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected at least 14 times to decisions they said were taken without their knowledge. The disputed decisions included matters connected with the Special Intensive Revision. Separately, BJP MP Sambit Patra defended the revision by describing an “ASDD” formula involving absent and permanently shifted voters.

These claims have intensified scrutiny of Kumar and the Election Commission. The opposition says the process threatens voting rights and democratic trust. The article presents the allegations and counterclaims, but does not independently establish that voter deletions or political direction occurred.

The article reports that the names of 13 crore people had not yet been included in the final electoral roll across various states. This figure is central to the political dispute because the opposition links the exclusions to alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision. The BJP, through Sambit Patra, offered the “ASDD” explanation for why names may be missing.

In the article’s explanation, “A” means Absent. A Booth Level Officer, or BLO, takes an enumeration form to a person’s home three times. If the person is not present on any of those visits, the person is marked absent and the name is excluded from the roll. “S” means Shifted, specifically permanently shifted. The article does not explain the meanings of the two “D” letters.

The reported figure does not automatically prove wrongful deletion. It describes people not yet included in the final roll. The dispute concerns whether the revision correctly identifies absent or shifted voters while protecting eligible citizens from losing access to voting.

An electoral roll is the official list used to establish who is registered to vote in a constituency. If a person’s name is missing from the final roll, election officials cannot treat that person as a listed voter for that election. In practical terms, the person may be unable to cast a regular vote, even if they believe they are eligible.

The article gives the “Absent” example. A Booth Level Officer visits a home three times with an enumeration form. If the person is not present during all three visits, the person is marked absent and the name is excluded from the electoral roll. It also identifies “Shifted” as another category used in the ASDD explanation.

The consequence is therefore direct: exclusion from the roll can prevent participation in the election. The article does not describe an appeal or correction process. That omission matters because the dispute is about whether the revision protects eligible voters from being wrongly left out while removing inaccurate entries.

The article calls the event an “impeachment” but describes it as symbolic. The article does not explain the formal legal process. Under India’s Constitution, a Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only through an address by both Houses of Parliament to the President, based on proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The required majorities are strict: a majority of the House’s total membership and at least two-thirds of members present and voting.

A public programme at a party leader’s residence has no power to remove a constitutional office-holder. It can present accusations, give affected citizens a platform, and create political or public pressure. It is therefore different from a parliamentary proceeding, which must follow constitutional rules and produce a formal address.

The INDIA bloc’s event is being held ahead of its “Delhi Chalo” rally, where opposition parties plan to seek Kumar’s resignation. That demand is political. It does not itself start or complete the constitutional removal process, and the article does not say that Parliament has adopted such a motion.

The Election Commission of India is responsible for administering elections and maintaining the electoral process, including preparing and revising voter rolls. The article focuses on the Commission’s Special Intensive Revision and on disagreements among its commissioners. Because the Commission decides who appears on the roll and oversees elections, its decisions directly affect political participation.

The article reports that Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected at least 14 times to decisions they alleged were taken without their knowledge. Kharge also accused Kumar of shutting out the other two commissioners and acting at the direction of Modi and Shah. Those claims have not been independently established in the article, but they explain why the opposition questions the Commission’s independence.

Trust matters because elections depend on acceptance by voters and political parties. If people believe rolls are changed selectively or officials favour one side, confidence in the process can fall. The public programme and planned rally are attempts to increase pressure for impartial functioning, while the Commission’s conduct remains central to the dispute.

Electoral rolls establish who is registered and eligible to vote in a constituency. Voter identification then links a person appearing at the polling place to the relevant entry, helping officials prevent someone from voting under another person’s name or voting more than once. Election oversight governs how these lists are prepared, checked, and used.

The article illustrates the first safeguard through the Special Intensive Revision. Booth Level Officers deliver enumeration forms and visit homes three times. A person marked absent, or classified as permanently shifted, may be excluded from the roll. The article also reports concerns about 13 crore missing names and allegations that 13.2 crore voters were deleted. These figures show why accurate revision matters.

The system works only if each part is reliable and impartial. Accurate rolls prevent duplicate or ineligible entries, identification limits impersonation, and independent oversight reduces political manipulation. The article’s dispute shows the risk from either error or alleged interference: eligible voters may be denied participation, while public confidence in one-person, one-vote elections may weaken.