Kharge accuses CEC Gyanesh Kumar of 'treason', levels 6 charges during INDIA bloc's mock impeachment

The INDIA bloc held a mock parliament to publicly impeach Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. It was a political protest, not a legal impeachment proceeding. Congress president and Rajya Sabha Opposition Leader Mallikarjun Kharge accused Kumar of “treason against the nation and the Constitution of India.” The event focused on alleged election irregularities and voter-roll revisions.

Kharge said Kumar was part of an alleged BJP-orchestrated conspiracy to manipulate elections. His charges included the alleged deletion of 13.2 crore voters during a Special Intensive Revision, changes to Form 6, centralised control through ERONET or ECINET, and sidelining two other Election Commissioners. He also alleged bias toward the BJP and benefits for Kumar’s family.

Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar presided over the proceedings at Kharge’s residence. INDIA bloc leaders, MPs, civil society representatives, and people claiming wrongful deletion attended. The event was postponed from October 30 because of rain and came before the bloc’s November 1 Delhi rally. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra criticised the protest.

Kharge’s six charges targeted both voter-roll management and the Election Commission’s independence. He alleged that Kumar oversaw the deletion of 13.2 crore voters during the Special Intensive Revision. He also accused him of changing Form 6 without parliamentary oversight, allegedly making first-time enrolment harder.

The remaining allegations concerned institutional control and political bias. Kharge said ERONET or ECINET centralised electoral-roll control, enabling deletions and blocking legitimate additions. He alleged that Kumar sidelined the other two Election Commissioners, despite at least 14 recorded objections. He further claimed Kumar favoured the BJP, denied opposition leaders a fair hearing, and weakened the Commission’s constitutional independence.

The sixth allegation concerned Kumar’s family. Kharge claimed family members received benefits such as plum postings and opportunities for financial gains in exchange for Kumar’s alleged compliance with the ruling establishment. These were allegations made during the mock proceedings, not findings established in the source. The BJP rejected the wider protest, calling it an effort to vitiate the atmosphere.

A Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a comprehensive review of electoral rolls. Its purpose is to check existing entries, remove ineligible or duplicate names, and add eligible voters. Such exercises matter because electoral rolls determine who can vote. Accurate rolls can reduce errors, while poorly handled revisions can exclude citizens.

In this case, Kharge alleged that the SIR deleted 13.2 crore voters. He called the exercise “partisan” and “opaque.” He also claimed that it violated the constitutional right to vote. His objection was therefore not to checking rolls in principle, but to the alleged scale, method, and lack of transparency of the revision.

The source does not provide the Election Commission’s response to each SIR allegation or independently verify Kharge’s claims. It reports that the allegations were made during the INDIA bloc’s mock impeachment of Gyanesh Kumar. The dispute could intensify pressure on the Commission, especially before the opposition’s November 1 rally, which was aimed at demanding Kumar’s removal.

Kharge alleged that the Special Intensive Revision resulted in the deletion of 13.2 crore voters. That figure equals 132 million people, making the allegation exceptionally large in democratic terms. Removing that many names would affect access to voting across a huge population if the deletions were wrongful.

The article does not state India’s total electorate at the time, so it does not support an exact percentage comparison. Using widely reported recent national totals as outside context, 13.2 crore would be roughly one-seventh of an electorate near 97 crore. That comparison is approximate and is not a figure supplied by the article.

The claim remains an allegation made by Kharge during the mock impeachment. The source does not independently confirm the number or explain how the alleged deletions were distributed. It does report that Kharge called the SIR partisan and opaque and said it violated the constitutional right to vote. The scale of the claim is central to the opposition’s protest.

Electoral rolls are the gateway to voting. If an eligible person’s name is wrongly removed, that person may be unable to vote unless the error is corrected in time. If a new voter cannot enrol, the person may miss an election altogether. These failures can turn an administrative mistake into a loss of political participation.

The article links this concern to Kharge’s allegations about SIR, Form 6, and ERONET or ECINET. He claimed 13.2 crore names were deleted and that changes to Form 6 made first-time enrolment difficult. He also alleged that software centralisation helped deletions and prevented legitimate additions. If those claims were established, affected citizens could be excluded from electoral choices without a fair remedy.

Large-scale errors could also affect election results by changing who is able to participate. They might deepen partisan accusations and reduce confidence in the Election Commission. The article does not report confirmed outcomes from the alleged deletions. It does show that the allegations prompted a mock impeachment, a November 1 rally, and demands for Kumar’s removal.

The Election Commission of India is the constitutional institution that oversees elections and electoral-roll administration. Its role matters because elections need a trusted referee. The Commission’s constitutional independence is meant to let it make decisions according to election law rather than instructions from the government or a political party.

In the article, Kharge alleged that CEC Gyanesh Kumar compromised that independence. He accused Kumar of favouring the BJP, denying opposition leaders a fair hearing, and sidelining the other two Election Commissioners. He also alleged that Kumar participated in a conspiracy to manipulate elections through voter-list additions and deletions. These claims were made during a political mock proceeding.

An independent Commission can protect equal competition by applying procedures consistently and giving parties and voters confidence that rolls are handled fairly. If independence is doubted, disputes over deletions, enrolment, or election conduct can become broader legitimacy crises. The source does not establish Kharge’s allegations as facts. It reports that BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra rejected the opposition’s wider campaign as an attempt to vitiate the atmosphere.

Electoral rolls are created and maintained through applications, verification, corrections, additions, and deletions. Eligible citizens must be able to request enrolment, while officials must check entries and remove names that are invalid, duplicated, or no longer applicable. Periodic revisions help keep rolls current. Because the rolls determine who may vote, each step needs clear rules and review.

Form 6 is an application used for enrolling a person as a voter, especially a new or first-time voter. The article says Kharge accused Kumar of amending it without parliamentary oversight. ERONET and ECINET are election software systems used in the roll-management process. Kharge alleged that centralised control through them facilitated deletions and blocked legitimate additions.

These systems matter because digital tools can make updating faster and more consistent, but decisions still require safeguards and accountability. The source does not describe the full technical workflow or confirm the allegations. It reports that two Election Commissioners allegedly raised at least 14 objections and that Kharge argued the process had become opaque and politically biased.