"Who ensured that CEC received legal protection?": Priyank Kharge questions systemic design amid ECI row

Priyank Kharge, in a post on X, wrote, " Who designed the system, who concentrated the power and who ensured that the Chief Election Commissioner received legal protection from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of their official duties?"

Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India, Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge on Thursday launched a sharp critique against the central leadership, alleging that systemic changes and institutional frameworks are engineered to shield top figures while accountability is deflected onto individual officials. Kharge, in a post on X, refering to a report by The Indian Express claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months regarding decisions and orders linked to electoral-roll procedures and the SIR exercise, argued that focusing solely on individual personnel misses the broader structural issues embedded in the nation's governance.

“Looks like the Modi Sarkar is preparing to sacrifice Gyanesh Kumar at the altar. But don’t be fooled. Gyanesh Kumar is only the pawn,” Priyank Kharge wrote. Kharge further questioned the systemic design that centralises power and grants legal protections to top election officials against civil or criminal proceedings for acts discharged during official duties.

Kharge added, “The bigger question is: who designed the system, who concentrated the power and who ensured that the Chief Election Commissioner received legal protection from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in the discharge of their “official duties”? Karnataka Minister asserted that responsibility for institutional erosion goes far beyond any single authority, claiming that top leadership figures have systematically undermined autonomous bodies to sustain a culture of cronyism.

“Accountability cannot stop with the pawn. The two most powerful people at the top have systematically weakened democratic institutions to cling to power and shield a system of corruption and cronyism,” Priyank Kharge stated. Meanwhile, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) will meet in New Delhi on September 29 to discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding the Election Commission of India and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, according to sources.

The current political situation is also expected to figure in the deliberations. The proposed meeting comes amid a political row following a report by The Indian Express claiming that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections at least 14 times over 10 months regarding decisions and orders linked to electoral-roll procedures and the SIR exercise. On Thursday, Former Election Commissioner Om Prakash Rawat emphasised that any decisions taken without consensus or a majority vote violate established statutory rules.

Speaking to ANI, Rawat highlighted that the ECI functions as a multi-member body where no single official, including the Chief Election Commissioner, holds unilateral authority. He underlined that any decision is made through consensus or majority. "That is the Election Commission's system, where all three Commissioners give suggestions and contribute their views on how things should be done. That is standard procedure. However, when a decision is made, it must be by consensus or by a majority vote," he said.

"If two Commissioners are on one side, that forms the majority. Their objection is that while they expressed a different view, Gyanesh Kumar proceeded independently. That is the issue," he added. Despite the mounting criticism and demands from opposition parties questioning the integrity of recent electoral processes, Rawat ruled out the possibility of retroactively cancelling concluded elections.

"No one can cancel an election once completed. What is done is done," he remarked. Further, Rawat emphasised that formal administrative and constitutional mechanisms must first be set into motion in order to call for the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar."

Someone has to initiate formal proceedings. If someone moves, then the subsequent steps will be seen," he said. Speaking on the alleged changes made in Form 6, Rawat noted that the poll panel exceeded its legal mandate by altering statutory requirements without formal approval from the President of India or Parliament.

He said that there are two types of applications in Form 6, one for the new voters and another for the old voters. "If a 40-year-old person comes to enrol their name and has never been registered anywhere before, suspicion arises as to where they were all this time," he said, giving an example."The form for that case is slightly different, requiring additional information about parents and related details," he added.

He further explained that this time ECI mandated everyone to provide details, even though it does not have the authority to do so. He underlined that this authority rests with the President. "But what the Election Commission did this time is apply the second type of form to everyone. Even if someone is 18 years old, they are now required to provide details about where their parents were and what they did. This has led to controversy, as it effectively amounts to an amendment to Form 6. The Election Commission has amended it, even though the Election Commission has no authority to amend any form. That authority rests solely with the President," he said.

The Election Commission however, said that all decisions of the Election Commission of India, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously with the approval of both Election Commissioners and the Chief Election Commissioner. (ANI)