Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has called on Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar to resign on moral grounds, alleging that concerns over electoral roll revisions have undermined the Opposition’s confidence in the Election Commission. Tharoor also said the Opposition was preparing articles of impeachment and would pursue Kumar’s removal if he did not step down.
In an exclusive interview with India Today TV, the Thiruvananthapuram MP questioned the legal protection granted to election commissioners under a 2023 law, arguing that it did not amount to constitutional immunity.
Tharoor linked the Opposition’s demand to alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He said the Opposition wanted the exercise suspended, wrongly deleted voters reinstated and the software used in the process reviewed.
“First of all, he (Gyanesh Kumar) doesn’t have constitutional protection. He has legal protection from a law passed by this BJP government towards the end of 2023 that grants him immunity,” Tharoor said, referring to a provision of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
He alleged that the legislation was passed during Parliament’s Winter Session after Opposition members had been expelled from the House.
“The Constitution does provide for impeachment. The Opposition is working on articles of impeachment,” he said.
Urging Kumar to consider stepping down, Tharoor questioned whether the Chief Election Commissioner could command public confidence while Opposition parties continued to raise concerns about the electoral process.
“I’d better step down in the interests of our democracy. That would be the gracious thing to do,” Tharoor said, describing what he believed Kumar should tell himself.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ABOUT CEC IMMUNITY?
Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, bars courts from entertaining or continuing civil or criminal proceedings against a serving or former CEC or Election Commissioner for acts performed in the discharge of official duties.
The provision has been challenged in the Supreme Court. In January 2026, the court issued notices to the Centre and the Election Commission but declined to stay the provision.
Article 324(5) of the Constitution stipulates that the CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. Other Election Commissioners can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC.
THAROOR ALLEGES IRREGULARITIES IN SIR
Tharoor outlined several demands from the Opposition, including suspending the SIR exercise, restoring the names of eligible voters allegedly deleted from electoral rolls, reviewing the software used in the process and reversing changes to Forms 6 and 7.
Form 6 is used to apply for inclusion in electoral rolls, while Form 7 allows objections to existing entries or requests for deletion.
Tharoor alleged that the software restricted Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) from overriding deletions, even in cases where they believed voters had been wrongly excluded. He also referred to an investigation into 97 cases in Goa as an example of alleged irregularities.
“Nobody is against removing dead, absent or relocated voters. I mean, that’s a common-sense thing. The problem is with the methods adopted by the Election Commission, the unseemly haste with which decisions have been made to strike voters off the rolls, the incredible slowness of the review process, the appeal process,” he said.
Tharoor argued that the process placed an unfair burden on citizens by requiring them to establish their eligibility after their names had been deleted.
“You are telling the voter, you prove that you deserve to vote. That’s not the way our government used to work. That’s not the way our system used to work,” he said.
Citing the case of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Tharoor said the 94-year-old economist had been asked to explain why his mother was only 15 years older than him. He argued that age differences reflecting early marriages and childbirth in earlier generations should not automatically be treated as grounds for questioning voter eligibility.
He also referred to notices reportedly issued to people who had represented India abroad, questioning why their eligibility to vote was being challenged.
Questioning the scale of deletions, Tharoor said, “You can’t have a world record number of 130 million people struck off the rolls and expect to retain any credibility.”
He rejected the suggestion that the Opposition was questioning electoral procedures simply because it had lost elections. According to him, complaints from voters who believed they had been wrongly excluded deserved proper scrutiny, particularly when delays in appeals could prevent them from voting in subsequent elections.
THAROOR CRITICISES JANTAR MANTAR DENOTIFICATION
Tharoor also criticised the decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, arguing that the move would distance demonstrators from the authorities they wanted to reach.
The government has identified Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi as alternative venues for protests.
“It’s a shame. What the government has now done, unfortunately, is to move the sites far away from the heart of Delhi, far away from the eyes and ears of the authorities the protesters want to reach,” he said.
Tharoor claimed that Ramlila Maidan had limited availability, with December 29 to 31 reportedly among the few dates available that year. He argued that the restrictions would leave protesters with fewer convenient options, including venues in Burari or across the Yamuna.
‘OPPOSITION SEEKING ELECTORAL REFORMS’
Tharoor said the Opposition’s immediate priority was to restore confidence in the electoral process and ensure that all political parties competed on a level playing field.
“The result of that should be a far more equitable, balanced, impartial, and fair Election Commission, which will conduct free and fair elections in which we will all have a level playing field,” he said.
He maintained that the Opposition would respect the electorate’s decision if elections were conducted fairly, even if voters chose the BJP.
“If they still want to vote for the BJP, we’ll honour that in a fair and free process,” Tharoor said.
He added that the broader objective was to ensure that voters could choose their government through a credible electoral process and that democratic institutions retained public confidence.