Chroniclecraze.blogspot.com
British political observers often say that a genuine constitutional crisis never erupts overnight. It usually begins with a single document, a leak, or — to describe India's current storm accurately — a written dissent left by an election commissioner in the official minutes of a meeting.Sambit Patra's Defence: Consensus Against the Storm
Sambit Patra's response came swiftly and forcefully. Faced with revelations that two election commissioners had recorded written dissents at least 14 times over the past ten months against decisions taken by the commission, Patra chose to counterattack directly. His core argument was clear: the final SIR (Special Intensive Revision) decision was unanimous, and the so-called "internal dissent" being cited by the opposition was nothing more than the normal functioning of democratic discussion.
"We are saving democracy, we are crushing the smear campaign against constitutional institutions," Patra told reporters in New Delhi. He invoked the Supreme Court's earlier ruling upholding the legality of the SIR, and turned his fire on the Congress party's "vote theft" allegations, mocking the opposition for wanting to impeach everything from the Speaker to the Chief Election Commissioner while "being continuously impeached by the voters."
Patra also deployed a politically potent counterargument: in those constituencies in West Bengal where the most voters were deleted from the rolls, it was the opposition that won the majority of seats. The implication was unmistakable — if the SIR were truly designed to suppress the opposition, why would the results show the exact opposite?
On the same day, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Two judges — Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma — could not reach agreement.
Justice Datta's position was deeply uncomfortable for the government. He observed that replacing the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection committee for election commissioners constituted, on the face of it, an "effective veto power" for the Union government. It failed the "test of perception" and sent the wrong signal to the public. He reminded the court that the independence of election commissioners in their appointment and functioning is part of free and fair elections and a necessary element of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Justice Sharma took the view that the law raised significant questions that ought to be referred to a larger Constitution Bench. With no majority opinion reached, the case has now been placed before the Chief Justice of India, who will decide whether to constitute a five-judge Constitution Bench.
The significance of this split verdict extends far beyond legal technicalities. It means that the Modi government's 2023 reform of the election commissioner appointment mechanism has triggered substantial constitutional concerns within the Supreme Court itself.
If Patra's defence is the government's first line of defence, the opposition's offensive is multi-pronged.
Mamata Banerjee was the most strident. The former Chief Minister of West Bengal demanded the outright arrest of Gyanesh Kumar and called for re-elections in West Bengal, Bihar, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh — every state where the BJP won following the SIR — based on the pre-SIR electoral rolls. "I have never seen such a scam," she said. "The BJP and Kumar are a joint venture."
Rahul Gandhi aimed at a broader narrative. He described the "vote theft" as a direct assault on the Constitution, accusing the BJP, the RSS, and the Election Commission of committing "treason." Earlier, in July, he had publicly demanded that Modi and Amit Shah resign over student protests, claiming the Prime Minister's image "has been destroyed and can never be rebuilt."
Akhilesh Yadav took a more specific position: future elections should not be held under Kumar's supervision. Uddhav Thackeray went further, proposing a complete alternative — declare the previous elections in Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu null and void, and re-poll using paper ballots.
To understand the intensity of this storm, one must understand who Gyanesh Kumar is. A 1988-batch Kerala cadre IAS officer, he was appointed the 26th Chief Election Commissioner in February 2025 — the first CEC to take office after the Modi government amended the selection procedure.
The most controversial decision of his tenure has been the revival of the SIR, which had been dormant for over two decades. Reports suggest that roughly 1.2 billion voter names were deleted from the rolls nationwide. In West Bengal alone, 9.2 million voters were removed, many marked as "dead" or "absent."
Kumar has defended himself, describing the exercise as "the purest and most accurate electoral roll in the world." But the opposition sees a different picture: after every SIR, the BJP won the election. To them, this correlation is not coincidence — it is evidence.
Several key variables will shape the road ahead.
First, whether the Chief Justice of India decides to refer the challenge to the appointment law to a Constitution Bench. If a five-judge bench is constituted and strikes down the 2023 law, it would be a fundamental blow to the Modi government's reform of the electoral machinery.
Second, whether the internal rift within the Election Commission produces institutional consequences. A lawyer has already sought the Attorney General's permission to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Gyanesh Kumar, on the grounds that decisions taken "in the name of the full commission without the knowledge or approval of the full commission" may constitute wilful defiance of the Supreme Court's orders.
Third, whether the opposition's demand for re-elections is politically feasible. Uddhav Thackeray has called on "all opposition parties to unite to save democracy," but cracks within the INDIA alliance — the unresolved rivalry between Rahul and Mamata, the DMK's careful distance — make unified action unlikely in the near term.
For Modi and Shah, the immediate pressure to resign remains largely a matter of opposition political rhetoric rather than institutional legal compulsion. But the very narrative of "an Election Commission operating under a cloud" is enough to cast a long shadow over 2026, an election-heavy year. To borrow an old phrase from the British House of Commons: in a democracy, what matters is not only how power is exercised, but how the exercise of power is seen to be conducted.
And right now, the Election Commission of India does not look independent.