About Us Contact Us
PoliticsIndia

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

sabrangindia    
From marches at Jantar Mantar to a demonstration outside the CEC’s residence, the Youth Congress is taking its campaign against Gyanesh Kumar into the streets, as opposition parties, students, trade unions and civil society groups prepare fresh protests
Image: Manish Swarup/AP

The Indian Youth Congress is taking its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar beyond political statements and press conferences, turning the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls into a sustained programme of street mobilisation.

On Saturday night, September 26, IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib led protesters to Kumar’s official residence in New Delhi, demanding his resignation and accountability over the functioning of the Election Commission during the electoral-roll revision exercise. The demonstration came days after the Youth Congress marched towards Jantar Mantar and as protests against the Election Commission were reported across several States.

 

The escalation follows The Indian Express’s September 23 investigation reporting that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on at least 14 occasions over a period of 10 months concerning decisions related to electoral-roll revisions and database access. The reported objections included voter additions and deletions, restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the centralisation of electoral-roll systems.

The disclosures have intensified an already contentious debate over the SIR exercise and the constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls. For the Youth Congress, the issue is no longer simply about an administrative exercise. It has framed the controversy as a question of citizens’ right to participate in elections and of the accountability of the constitutional institution entrusted with conducting them.

 

Youth Congress puts CEC at the centre of its campaign

The IYC has placed Kumar personally at the centre of its mobilisation. At the September 26 demonstration outside his residence, as reported by PTI, Chib said Youth Congress members would maintain a “watch” outside the CEC’s residence and claimed that members would also be present at airports. The protesters demanded Kumar’s resignation and raised slogans over alleged irregularities in the electoral process.

The language used by some Youth Congress leaders has been deliberately confrontational. At an earlier protest, Chib accused Kumar of betraying the country and claimed that he would eventually face imprisonment. But beneath the rhetoric is a more fundamental demand: that the Election Commission account publicly for the decisions taken during the SIR and for the concerns reportedly raised by two of its own members.

The Youth Congress has already taken the campaign beyond Delhi. Protests have been held or announced in several States, including Bihar, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur.

In Delhi, the IYC’s demonstrations have included masks bearing Kumar’s face and protesters displaying their hands in chains. The symbolism is unmistakable: the organisation is seeking to transform what could otherwise remain an institutional dispute into a public accountability campaign.

The strategy also reflects the political importance of young and first-time voters. Student groups have separately raised concerns about changes to Form 6, the application used for inclusion in the electoral roll, arguing that procedural changes could make registration more difficult for young citizens.

A detailed report on the #QuitGyaneshKumar protests may be read here.

Articles exposing the non-transparency in functioning of the Election Commission of India (ECI) may be read here, here and here.

The SIR controversy behind the protests

The immediate trigger for the current mobilisation is the controversy surrounding the SIR and the reported objections within the Election Commission. According to The Indian Express, Sandhu and Joshi raised questions on multiple occasions about decisions relating to voter deletions, additions and restoration, the modification of Form 6 and access to electoral databases. The newspaper reported that some of the objections concerned whether changes were being made without adequate consultation within the Commission.

The Election Commission has disputed the political interpretation of these reports. It has maintained that operational queries, internal observations and administrative suggestions are a normal part of the functioning of a multi-member constitutional body and has asserted that its final decisions on the SIR were unanimous. That response, however, has not ended the controversy. Instead, it has intensified demands for greater transparency about how the Commission arrived at its decisions, what objections were recorded internally and how those objections were resolved.

The question is particularly important because electoral rolls are not merely administrative databases. They determine who can exercise the franchise. Any erroneous deletion can therefore have consequences far beyond paperwork. For citizens whose names disappear from electoral rolls, the burden of establishing eligibility and navigating the restoration process can become a practical barrier to exercising the right to vote. This is why the controversy has increasingly been framed by protesters as one concerning disenfranchisement rather than simply electoral administration.

Questions over deleted voters

Opposition parties and civil society organisations have raised particular concerns about the scale of deletions during the SIR. The Hindu reported that CPI(ML)-Liberation conducted surveys in selected constituencies in Bihar to verify the status of voters whose names had been deleted. In Aigaon, the party said 46 of 204 deleted voters surveyed were still living in their villages. In Ziradei, it said 122 of 665 voters deleted during the SIR were found to be residing in the village.

These figures are based on a party-conducted survey of selected booths and cannot, by themselves, establish the scale of wrongful deletions across Bihar or the country. They have nevertheless been cited by the Left as evidence of why deleted names require systematic verification.

The concern is particularly acute for communities for whom documentary requirements, migration, displacement or unstable residence can already make access to official records difficult. Trade unions have similarly entered the debate. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions has argued that poor and migrant workers could face disproportionate difficulties in restoring their names to electoral rolls if they are deleted during the revision process.

The electoral-roll debate has therefore acquired a wider social dimension: who bears the burden when a name disappears from the voter list, how easily can that person challenge the deletion, and what safeguards exist against wrongful exclusion?

 

From electoral rolls to institutional accountability

The controversy has also raised questions about the internal functioning of the Election Commission. The reported objections of Sandhu and Joshi are significant precisely because they came from within the constitutional body itself. The issue is not that members of a multi-member institution can never disagree. Institutional disagreement is neither unlawful nor unusual. The question is what happens to those disagreements.

An RTI response obtained by activist Anjali Bharadwaj has added another layer to the debate. According to The News Minute, the Election Commission responded to a query concerning the decision to undertake a nationwide SIR by stating that it had not taken any decision to initiate a nationwide SIR in 2025. The RTI application had sought, among other things, the files and decision-making records relating to the exercise. Bharadwaj subsequently questioned how the national rollout had been decided if the requested decision-making records were unavailable. The RTI response raises a legitimate transparency question about the documentary trail behind an exercise affecting electoral rolls on a massive scale.

Police action adds another layer

The protests have also generated concerns about the policing of dissent and the treatment of journalists covering the demonstrations. The Press Club of India condemned the detention of Frontline journalist Vedaant Lakhera and The Wire journalist Mohammad Irfan while they were covering a September 25 protest at Jantar Mantar. According to the PCI, both journalists were wearing press identification. It said Lakhera was taken to Parliament Street police station and told to delete a photograph, while Irfan was detained for several hours. The PCI described the episode as a matter of serious concern for press freedom.

This is significant because scrutiny of an electoral institution depends not only on formal mechanisms of accountability but also on the ability of journalists and citizens to document public protests and report on the conduct of authorities.

At the same time, Delhi Police has said protesters were detained because permissions had not been obtained for demonstrations at certain locations. Reports from other States have also documented the use of water cannons and tear gas during protests. The emerging picture is therefore not simply one of a political confrontation with the Election Commission. It is also becoming a debate over the space available for public dissent and independent reporting during an intensely contested electoral controversy.

Opposition parties prepare for the next phase

The Youth Congress mobilisation is now converging with a broader opposition campaign. The Congress Working Committee is scheduled to meet on September 29 to discuss its strategy on the Election Commission and SIR. Opposition INDIA bloc parties are expected to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss a coordinated response. The proposed meeting follows outreach between parties that have otherwise been political rivals in their respective States.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and a halt to the SIR. The Trinamool Congress has also called for coordinated opposition action, while CPI(M) general secretary M.A. Baby has reached out to opposition leaders seeking wider mobilisation.

Opposition parties are also reportedly preparing another parliamentary notice seeking Kumar’s removal, potentially in both Houses of Parliament. It would be another attempt to initiate the constitutional process concerning the removal of the CEC.

 

Mumbai set for another round of protests

The next major flashpoint is likely to be Mumbai. Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (UBT) have announced a joint rally for October 4 against the SIR and the functioning of the Election Commission.

 

As reported by Hindustan Times, Raj Thackeray has called for the mobilisation to be treated as a public protest and appealed to political parties to participate. Aaditya Thackeray has also backed a wider mobilisation beginning October 2 if Kumar does not resign.

The Cockroach Janta Party has separately announced a nationwide protest campaign beginning in Mumbai on October 2, with plans to subsequently take the mobilisation to other cities. Even after permission was denied by Mumbai police, the call for the agitation has stayed.

 

For the protestors, the strategy is clear: keep the controversy visible, take it to young voters and expand it from Delhi into a national campaign. The organisation’s protests have moved from marches to demonstrations outside the CEC’s residence. Its leaders have announced continued mobilisation, while Congress workers have taken the issue to State capitals and district-level centres. The immediate demand remains Kumar’s resignation.

But the larger issue being placed before the public is whether an electoral-roll revision affecting millions of citizens can be conducted with sufficient transparency, procedural safeguards and accountability. The protesters are demanding evidence of that institutional accountability.

 

Related:

A chargesheet against the ECI’s “All Is Well” defence

Exclusive Investigation SIR: How many voters did the ECI actually disenfranchise? Why do final figures show inexplicable ‘additions’?

Assam: ‘No to SIR!’ Complete the pending NRC! 

Judgement delivered, paradox prevails: every voter a citizen, but what is the fate of 51.8 million excluded?

SC greenlights SIR, upholds ECI’s power to revise electoral rolls

The Bihar Verdict 2025: How an election was engineered before votes were cast

Trending

IN FOCUS

IN FOCUS

Related Articles

ALL STORIES

Load more

ALL STORIES

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved