CEC Gyanesh Kumar Should Go

Constitution and Democracy Should Prevail

D.RAJA, General Secretary, CPI

The Right to Vote Was Won Through Sacrifices. Modi and Gyanesh Kumar Are Undermining It

India’s democracy was not a gift to its people by a benevolent ruler. It was won through a long and arduous struggle against colonial rule, a struggle in which millions participated and countless freedom fighters sacrificed their lives. The demand for democracy was inseparable from the demand for independence. The people who fought the British understood that political freedom would remain incomplete unless every Indian, regardless of wealth, caste, religion, gender or social position, had an equal right to shape the country’s destiny. During the freedom struggle, democratic bodies and representative institutions emerged even under colonial rule, asserting the principle that Indians had the right to govern themselves. The Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, gradually became a platform for political mobilisation, while revolutionary movements, workers’ organisations, peasant struggles and the Left expanded the meaning of freedom beyond the transfer of power from British rulers to Indian rulers. The demand for universal adult franchise was central to this vision. Under colonial rule, voting rights were restricted by property, education, taxation and other qualifications. Only a small section of the population could participate in elections. The freedom movement challenged this exclusion because its central promise was that the people, not a privileged minority, must determine India’s future. This was a lesson paid for through imprisonment, brutal repression, poverty and death. The right to vote was never merely a procedural formality. It was the political expression of the sacrifices made by generations of Indians who refused to accept that their lives should be governed without their consent.

When India became independent, the Constituent Assembly, under the leadership of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in the making of the Constitution, gave this democratic aspiration an extraordinary institutional form. The Constitution established India as a sovereign democratic republic and guaranteed universal adult suffrage. Every adult citizen, woman or man, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, was entitled to participate in elections on equal terms. India did not wait for literacy, prosperity or social equality to arrive before extending the franchise to its people. It recognised that democracy was necessary to achieve those very goals. Many established democracies, including the United States and European countries, took generations to overcome restrictions based on property, race, gender and social status. India began its constitutional life with universal adult franchise. That decision reflected the confidence of the freedom fighters in ordinary people and their determination to make political equality the foundation of the Republic. The lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 through the 61st Constitutional Amendment in 1988 further expanded participation, bringing millions of young Indians into the democratic process. The campaign for a wider franchise and the efforts of political leaders, including CPI leader C. K. Chandrappan, formed part of this broader democratic advance. Over the decades, elections enabled workers, peasants, Dalits, Adivasis, women and other historically marginalised communities to assert their political presence. Indian democracy was never without flaws. Money power, caste oppression, communal mobilisation and unequal access to political resources repeatedly distorted the democratic process. Yet the system retained the capacity for correction because people could vote governments out, organise movements, demand accountability and fight for reforms. Its promise lay not in perfection, but in the ability of citizens to participate and make their voices count. Today, that promise is under direct assault.

The Narendra Modi government is systematically weakening the institutions that sustain democratic accountability. Its understanding of democracy increasingly appears to begin and end with winning elections, while treating independent institutions, opposition parties, dissenting citizens and public scrutiny as obstacles to be overcome. The Election Commission of India, which is constitutionally entrusted with protecting the integrity of elections, has come under unprecedented scrutiny. Article 324 of the Constitution vests in the Election Commission the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of the President and Vice-President. This mandate demands independence, impartiality and public confidence. An Election Commission cannot fulfil it if citizens believe that the referee has become an instrument of the ruling party. Elections have increasingly been distorted by the enormous advantages enjoyed by the BJP through money power, the use of state machinery and the weakening of institutional checks. The electoral bonds scheme, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2024, exposed how an opaque system of political funding had enabled the ruling party to benefit disproportionately from anonymous donations. The 2023 law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners marked another grave setback. It replaced the Supreme Court-prescribed selection arrangement with a committee dominated by the executive, giving the government of the day decisive influence over the selection of its leadership. The independence of the Election Commission cannot survive on assurances alone when the executive it is supposed to scrutinise exercises such control over the selection of its leadership. The consequences are visible in the mounting controversy surrounding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the handling of electoral rolls and the conduct of the Commission. Questions about the institution’s credibility have also been raised by former Election Commissioners. The BJP’s response has not been to restore confidence through transparency and accountability, but to demand unquestioning acceptance of the institution’s decisions.

The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls has brought these concerns to a dangerous new level. More than 13 crore names have been deleted during the SIR exercise. The Election Commission must explain how every deletion was verified and how eligible citizens will be protected from disenfranchisement. Behind these numbers are the democratic rights of real people: migrant workers who move in search of employment, poor families struggling with documentation, minorities and other vulnerable communities who cannot afford to navigate an opaque administrative process. An electoral roll revision must protect the integrity of the franchise, not become a mechanism that excludes legitimate voters. The fundamental question is simple: in a democracy, voters are supposed to elect their rulers, not the other way around. When millions of names disappear from electoral rolls, the burden of proof cannot be shifted onto citizens who are already disadvantaged. Nor can the Election Commission expect the public to accept its assurances without transparent procedures, verifiable records and independent scrutiny. The controversy over unilateral changes to Form 6 has only deepened the crisis of confidence. The demand for accountability is therefore not an attack on democracy; it is a demand to defend democracy against institutional failure.

The scale of the Modi government’s anxiety about this movement is evident in the response to peaceful protest. Delhi was fortified with barricades and an overwhelming deployment of security personnel. Students and youth who gathered to demand Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation were detained, manhandled and beaten by Delhi Police, a force under Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Journalists covering the demonstrations were also detained, drawing condemnation from press-freedom organisations. Why should a government that claims popular legitimacy fear students raising questions about the integrity of elections? Why should a constitutional authority require such extraordinary protection from citizens demanding accountability? The answer lies in the political importance the BJP attaches to retaining control over institutions that determine the terms of electoral competition. The INDIA Bloc, with the active participation of the Left, has joined a growing people’s movement to restore public confidence in the democratic process. This movement must go beyond demanding the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar. It must press for independent and transparent appointments to the Election Commission, a review of electoral-roll deletions, accountability for arbitrary exclusions, transparency in political funding and meaningful electoral reform. It must also advance the demand for a return to paper ballots, reflecting the widespread distrust of electronic voting systems among sections of the electorate. A credible democracy cannot survive on the argument that citizens must simply trust the machinery that counts their votes.

The resignation of Gyanesh Kumar is the first step towards restoring the credibility of the Election Commission. It is not a substitute for structural reform, but an indispensable demand in the present crisis of confidence. The BJP must understand that democracy is not the private property of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah or any ruling party. The Constitution does not authorise the government to subordinate every institution to its political interests. The right to protest, the right to dissent and the right to vote are inseparable foundations of the Republic. Those who fought colonial rule did not sacrifice their lives so that independent India could reproduce the arbitrary power they resisted. They fought for a country in which every citizen would have a say in shaping the future. That promise must be defended. The INDIA Bloc and the Left are determined to carry this struggle forward until the Election Commission is made accountable, electoral processes become genuinely transparent and every eligible Indian can exercise the franchise without fear or obstruction. The students beaten in Delhi, the workers whose names are missing from electoral rolls and the citizens who refuse to surrender their democratic rights are part of the same struggle that began during the freedom movement. The veil of fear is lifting. The demand is clear: Gyanesh Kumar must resign, electoral reforms must follow, and the people’s right to determine their own destiny must prevail. The movement will continue.

Communist Party of India

Central Office 

New Delhi

Tele: 011 23235546

e-mail: cpiofindia@gmail.com