Gyanesh Kumar Under Fire: ‘Defending Him Has Become Very Difficult,’ Says Manish Anand

Spread love

By TRH Political Desk

Political analyst Manish Anand has sharply criticised Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, saying questions about the Election Commission’s functioning have reached a critical point.

New Delhi, October 2, 2026 — Political analyst Manish Anand, in a monologue for The Raisina Hills, said Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is facing a difficult situation amid continuing questions over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

“Defending Gyanesh Kumar has become very difficult,” Anand said, arguing that the developments being reported about the Election Commission had put Kumar under considerable pressure.

According to Anand, the scrutiny centres on the way voter lists were revised through the SIR exercise, including questions surrounding Form 6, which is linked to voter registration.

He referred to alleged irregularities in the process, including claims relating to bulk applications and the use of software for voter-list changes. Anand also referred to the controversy surrounding Belagavi in Karnataka and alleged targeting of a particular community.

Anand argued that the developments raise questions about the functioning of the Election Commission and its ability to maintain public confidence in the electoral system.

Anand said several questions had emerged over the Election Commission’s role and functioning.

He also referred to reported differences among the three members of the Election Commission, saying the issue had attracted attention because the Chief Election Commissioner and the other two commissioners are equal members of the poll panel.

“The three members of the Election Commission have equal powers,” Anand said, adding that the Chief Election Commissioner is “one among equals”.

He questioned why the three commissioners had not appeared together before the media to answer the questions surrounding the institution.

“Why can’t Gyanesh Kumar come before the press with his two colleagues and show the ability to answer questions?” Anand asked.

According to him, the absence of a joint press conference, while statements are being issued, raises further questions about whether the three members are fully aligned on the functioning of the commission.

Anand said the controversy goes beyond an administrative dispute and concerns public confidence in the electoral process.

“Free and fair elections are a fundamental issue of Indian democracy,” he said.

He argued that if people begin losing faith in the electoral system, questions would inevitably arise about the wider democratic process.

Anand also linked the controversy to the role of the Supreme Court, saying that judicial intervention was important when questions concerning constitutional principles and the basic structure were raised.

He said that if people do not see timely intervention when such questions arise, confidence in the democratic process could decline further.

Anand linked the controversy to changes made by the Election Commission to Form 6, arguing that the subsequent withdrawal of those changes strengthened the questions that had been raised about the process.

“If so many questions are being raised against the Election Commission, why has the full commission not been able to hold a press conference?” he asked.

Anand also criticised attempts to respond to the present controversy by referring to alleged problems involving the electoral system in previous decades.

He said today’s questions needed to be answered on their own merits.

“You cannot respond to today’s crisis by pointing to what went wrong in history,” Anand said.

He argued that references to events of the 1980s and 1990s could not provide an answer to questions currently being raised about the Election Commission.

According to Anand, restoring the commission’s neutrality, credibility and public confidence is now essential.

He said the responsibility for addressing the questions ultimately extends beyond political parties and the Election Commission itself.

“The credibility and neutrality of the Election Commission have to be restored; it is necessary for the Constitution and for the country’s democracy,” Anand said.