Why Cockroach Janata Party Gives CEC Gyanesh Kumar 48 Hours to Resign?
The political controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India has intensified after the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign within 48 hours.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, along with party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, issued the ultimatum at a press conference in New Delhi on September 24. The organisation warned that it would launch nationwide protests and an indefinite sit-in in Delhi if the CEC did not step down. It also announced an “Election Commission Thik Karo” campaign. Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
The demand comes amid a growing controversy over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and reports of disagreements between the three Election Commissioners.
Why is CJP demanding the CEC’s resignation?
The immediate reason is a report published by The Indian Express, which reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally raised objections to decisions taken in the name of the Election Commission.
According to the report, the two commissioners recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over 10 months, including four objections on one day. Their concerns reportedly involved the addition of voters, deletion and restoration of names, appeals relating to electoral rolls and access to the Election Commission’s software.
The report said the two commissioners questioned whether some decisions had been taken without their knowledge or consultation. They also raised concerns about the centralisation of access to electoral-roll data and the functioning of the software used by the Election Commission.
These reported objections have become a major part of the political debate. However, the allegations remain contested, and the Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that its decisions were taken without the approval of all three commissioners.
What is the SIR controversy?
The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is an exercise conducted by the Election Commission to revise electoral rolls.
The process began in Bihar in June 2025 and was later extended to other parts of India. Its purpose is to identify and address problems in voter lists, including duplicate, deceased, shifted or otherwise ineligible entries.
However, the scale of the exercise has generated considerable political controversy.
An Indian Express investigation reported that more than 13 crore names had been struck off draft electoral rolls across 30 states and Union Territories during the SIR process. This does not mean that all those people permanently lost their voting rights. Electoral-roll revisions can involve verification, appeals and subsequent restoration of names.
The issue has nevertheless raised questions about how eligible voters can protect their names on the electoral rolls and how quickly genuine voters can be restored if their names are removed.
In West Bengal, for example, the Election Commission told the Supreme Court that 27.16 lakh voters had been removed during the SIR process, while more than 22 lakh of them had filed appeals seeking reinstatement.
Concerns over centralised voter data
Another important issue concerns the Election Commission’s software and database systems.
The reported objections by Sandhu and Joshi included concerns about the centralisation of ERONet controls in Delhi and the ability of officials at the constituency level to record decisions concerning voters.
The Indian Express reported one example from Goa in which 97 people had provided documents and were found eligible by the Electoral Registration Officer, but the officer was unable to record the decisions in the software controlled from the Election Commission headquarters.
The issue is important because electoral-roll decisions are ultimately connected to a citizen’s ability to remain registered as a voter.
CJP has therefore demanded an explanation from the Election Commission about how the centralised system works and who has final authority over such changes.
What has CJP demanded?
CJP has made several demands in addition to asking Gyanesh Kumar to resign.
The organisation has called for:
- The resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- An independent investigation into the Election Commission’s functioning.
- A freeze on the SIR process.
- Restoration of electoral rolls to their January 2025 position, as demanded by CJP.
- Action against those whom the organisation alleges were responsible for irregularities.
- A review or repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners.
- Clarification about who authorised changes to the electoral-roll software and related decisions.
CJP has also demanded criminal proceedings against the CEC. That is a demand made by the organisation and should not be treated as a finding that Gyanesh Kumar has committed a crime.
What has the Election Commission said?
The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections show that its decisions were taken without collective approval.
EC officials have said that all decisions, including those concerning SIR, were approved unanimously by the three-member Commission.
The public record also shows that the three Election Commissioners continued to appear together at official briefings during the period in which the objections were reportedly being recorded. India Today reported that the commissioners maintained a united public appearance despite the internal objections.
Therefore, there are currently two different aspects of the controversy: reports of formal internal objections on particular decisions, and the Election Commission’s position that its final decisions were unanimous.
Can the CEC be removed simply because CJP demands it?
No.
The 48-hour deadline announced by CJP is a political ultimatum, not a legal deadline that can automatically remove the Chief Election Commissioner from office.
Under the Constitution and the 2023 law governing the Election Commission, the CEC has special protection from removal. The CEC can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
The grounds are generally proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
This means that a political organisation, protest group or individual cannot directly remove the CEC simply by demanding his resignation.
How can the Chief Election Commissioner be removed?
The removal process involves Parliament.
A removal motion must first be initiated in Parliament with the required support of MPs. If the motion is admitted, an inquiry process is conducted to examine the allegations.
If the charges of proved misbehaviour or incapacity are established, both Houses of Parliament must approve the removal address with the constitutionally required special majority.
Only after the required parliamentary process can the President issue the formal order removing the CEC.
The 2023 Election Commission law specifically states that the CEC cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
The position is different for other Election Commissioners. Under the same law, an Election Commissioner other than the CEC can be removed by the President on the recommendation of the CEC.
How are Election Commissioners appointed?
The appointment system is governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
The law provides for a three-member Selection Committee consisting of:
- The Prime Minister;
- The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, or the leader of the single largest opposition party where applicable; and
- A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Before the Selection Committee considers candidates, a Search Committee prepares a panel of eligible people.
The final recommendation is then sent to the President for appointment.
Why is the 2023 appointment law controversial?
The appointment system itself has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The controversy mainly concerns the replacement of the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the Selection Committee.
In its 2023 judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had directed that, until Parliament made a law, the selection committee should comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
Parliament subsequently passed the 2023 law, replacing the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Petitioners have argued before the Supreme Court that this gives the government greater influence over the appointment process. The Supreme Court has recorded these challenges, including arguments concerning the independence of the Election Commission.
Importantly, the Supreme Court’s March 2024 order did not finally decide the constitutional validity of the 2023 appointment provision. The Court declined to stay the law at that stage and noted that the constitutional challenge remained pending.
What did the Supreme Court say in Anoop Baranwal?
The Anoop Baranwal case became an important turning point in the debate over appointments to the Election Commission.
For decades, Parliament had not enacted a law specifically setting out the appointment mechanism contemplated by Article 324 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court therefore established an interim arrangement.
Until Parliament enacted a law, the selection committee was to include:
- The Prime Minister;
- The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and
- The Chief Justice of India.
The Court made clear that this arrangement would operate until Parliament enacted legislation on the issue.
Parliament later enacted the 2023 law, creating the current selection structure.
What happens next?
CJP has said that if Gyanesh Kumar does not resign within 48 hours, it will begin a nationwide campaign and protest movement.
The organisation has also announced an indefinite protest in Delhi and its “Election Commission Thik Karo” campaign.
At the same time, the Election Commission continues to defend its procedures and says its decisions were taken unanimously.
The controversy is therefore centred on several separate questions: how the SIR process is being implemented, how electoral-roll software is controlled, whether internal objections were adequately addressed, and whether the current appointment system provides sufficient institutional safeguards.
The reported objections by two Election Commissioners have added a new dimension to the debate, but the objections themselves do not establish that the CEC committed misconduct. Further clarification from the Election Commission, Parliament or the courts will be important in determining the legal and factual significance of the issues raised.
You Might Also Like:
Education In Kashmir with Complete Statistics
TCS Nashik ‘Conversion’ Scandal: Accused Nida Khan Suspended as Sexual Harassment and Coercion Probe Intensifies
