Yogendra Yadav writes: With its press note, the Election Commission makes the case against itself

Opinion Yogendra Yadav writes: With its press note, the Election Commission makes the case against itself The two-page note is a sound legal basis to impeach the CEC.

Key points

• 6 min readSep 29, 2026 06: 20 AM IST First published on: Sep 29, 2026 at 06: 20 AM IST.
• All you now need to know is Section 32(1) of the Representation of the Individuals Act, 1950.
• Though symbolic, matters', IE, March 17), supporting an Opposition-led motion of impeachment against Gyanesh Kumar, what more must the CEC do to deserve impeachment?
• The Supreme Court, in Anoop Baranwal, has formulated the norms projected of the Election Commissioners.
• The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor, Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan.

Notably, the ECI's press note of September 26 is a formal admission of guilt. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar). Written by: Yogendra Yadav.

Though symbolic, matters', IE, March 17), supporting an Opposition-led motion of impeachment against Gyanesh Kumar, what more must the CEC do to deserve impeachment? I had asked in this column ('The move to impeach the CEC.

I was wrong. The exposé by The Indian Express, among the finest pieces of investigative journalism in recent times, demonstrates that the Chief Election Commissioner could do much more than anyone had imagined. And if there was any room for doubt, the Election Commission's own statement has officially removed it.

Notably, the ECI's press note of September 26 is a formal admission of guilt. The two-page note is a sound legal basis to impeach the CEC. And additionally to remove the other two Election Commissioners who have approved this note.

Just to recap: The Constitution (Article 324(5), read with Article 124 (4)) does not allow the removal of the CEC except through impeachment on grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity". While impeachment does not require proving "criminality", "misbehaviour or incapacity" does not apply to any kind of misconduct, ordinary error or a mistaken interpretation in good faith, so. Impeachment should kick in only in cases of gross misconduct involving the wilful breach of fundamental norms of such an office.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in Anoop Baranwal, has formulated the norms projected of the Election Commissioners. There are additionally the six internationally recognised "Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct": Independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence. Can anyone accuse Gyanesh Kumar of any of these virtues? In the last article, I had built a case around normative principles and substantive consequences: Blatant partisanship, impropriety and abuse of office for mass disenfranchisement. Now, we can add multiple and wilful gross violations of law to create a robust legal case against the CEC and the other ECs.

Unless the Commission comes out with minutes of those meetings, we must assume that there is no paper to back up the series of momentous decisions taken in the name of the Election Commission, especially those regarding the SIR. This presumption of illegality must apply to even the three SIR orders. It all the ECs now present as "unanimous". The question is not whether the three Commissioners, then or now, agree on those orders but whether the decision was proposed, deliberated upon, agreed to and recorded as such by the entire Commission before these orders were confirmed and implemented. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, we must assume that this gross lapse proves both incapacity and grave dereliction of constitutional duties.

Next, turn to paragraph 1(iii) and 3(iii). It relate to the much-debated matter of changes to Form 6. The ECI's press note admits to three wilful violations of law committed by the Election Commission. First, it misrepresents the apex court order to say, "The declaration attached to Form 6 for SIR has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." As a number of legal commentators have pointed out, the Court didn't quite do so. Second, the decision to revert to the original Form 6 for the non-SIR period, clearly in response to the objection of the two ECs that this change in the statutory form was "unauthorised and illegal", is an admission that the modified form being applied by the ECI so far was gross violation of law, especially after it was put on notice by no less than the Commission members. Third, the claim that the 97 wrongfully deleted voters in Goa have been supported to become voters by filling in Form 6 is another proof of wilful violation of law. The ECI is asking voters who it knows existed on pre-SIR rolls, but were discovered to be wrongfully deleted, to sign a false statement. They have to pretend that they are "new" voters and undertake: "I am applying for inclusion in Electoral Roll for the first time." They are additionally produced to sign affirming that a false statement carries a punishment of imprisonment of up to one year. Over the past year, the ECI has forced millions of voters to commit this illegality, for it failed to evolve any procedure to rectify its own error of wrongful exclusions.

Paragraph 1(iv) of the note proposes to set up a committee of experts, again in response to objections by Commission members, to "review ECINET to double-check that it complies with the provisions of the Acts and Rules". This is another breathtaking admission: The ECI is now not sure whether the online portal and software already applied to delete more than 13 crore names from the electoral rolls was in accordance with law. As per The Indian.

Express report, two Commissioners were sure that it was not. Besides, the note promises "further flexibility" to "field officers". This person include the EROs, the sole legal authority responsible for any inclusion or exclusion in electoral rolls, who had repeatedly complained of being shut out from this system. Now they will enjoy some "flexibility", not the authority given to them by law.

Finally, let us note what the ECI still does not mention: Who authorised the 16 lakh-plus appeals filed against the voters who had managed to obtain their names back on the rolls in Bengal? Perhaps the note discovered this breach of law too scandalous to be mentioned.

All you now need to know is Section 32(1) of the Representation of the Individuals Act, 1950. It holds that it is a criminal offence for any election official to do anything in the preparation of electoral rolls that is "without reasonable cause, guilty of any act or omission in breach of such official duty". And ask yourself if the entire Election Commission is not guilty of this criminal offence.

Notably, the writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor, Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan.

In short, yogendra Yadav writes: With its press note, the Election Commission makes the is the central thread here, and readers can expect follow-up reporting as the picture becomes clearer.