At ‘public impeachment’, voters question deletion of names from electoral rolls

1. At a Glance

• On 31 Oct 2026 the INDIA bloc held a symbolic "public impeachment" of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi. Voters spoke there about names deleted from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) [1].
• The topic brings together three exam themes: the powers of the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Article 324, how the CEC can be removed (Article 324(5)), and the right to vote vs. checks on whether a voter is eligible [1][2][3].
• It matters for UPSC because the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct an SIR under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act [3]. Disputes over how it is carried out (documents, Form 6, deletions) are still being argued [4].

2. Why in the News

• 31 Oct 2026: the INDIA bloc's symbolic "public impeachment" of the CEC. Voters described being asked to prove citizenship, getting notices over "mapping discrepancies", and being wrongly marked dead [1].
• Sept 2026: after a newspaper report, the Opposition demanded the CEC's removal and arrest. The ECI replied that its decisions were unanimous [5][2].
• Sept 2026: three NDA allies asked the ECI for clarification during the SIR row [6].
• A petition in the Supreme Court seeks criminal prosecution of the CEC over alleged breaches of statutory duty linked to the SIR [7].
• Oct 2026: the Supreme Court is testing how far the ECI's powers go on Form 6 requirements in the SIR [4]. A plea by Rahul Gandhi was not listed for hearing because of uncured defects [8].

3. Background & Evolution

• The SIR: an intensive revision means the electoral roll is prepared fresh, not just updated. That is the difference from the routine summary revision. The ECI announced an SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar first [9].
• Milestones:
• The ECI announced the Bihar SIR (PIB release) [9].
• The SIR was extended to other States. Affected voters in the article come from Kolkata (West Bengal) and Delhi [1].
• May 2026: the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct the SIR, calling it "necessary for free and fair polls" and linked to fair elections [3][10].
• Sept 2026: the CEC removal row began and demands for prosecution followed [2][5][7].

• Oct 2026: the Supreme Court is examining the Form 6 issue [4]. The "public impeachment" was held on 31 Oct [1].

• Precedent: according to reports, no CEC has ever been removed through the parliamentary process [2].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Constitutional body	Election Commission of India. Superintendence, direction and control of electoral rolls and elections under Article 324 [3]
Statutory base for SIR	Section 21(3), RP Act (the Act on electoral rolls). The ECI can order a special revision at any time [3]
CEC removal	Article 324(5): only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge, i.e., Parliament must approve removal for proved misbehaviour or incapacity [2]
Other ECs / Regional Commissioners	Can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation [2]
Removal history	No CEC has ever been removed this way [2]
Present CEC	Gyanesh Kumar [1]
Enrolment form in dispute	Form 6 (new enrolment). The Supreme Court said it may not apply literally to an intensive revision [4]
Accountability routes	Removal, judicial review of an ECI decision and personal criminal liability are separate legal questions [7]
Civil society actor in the article	Nikhil Dey, founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) [1]

The following are standard constitutional text. They were not retrieved this session, so verify them before the exam:

• Art. 325: no person is excluded from the roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
• Art. 326: elections on the basis of adult suffrage.
• Art. 329: courts are barred from interfering in electoral matters.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The Supreme Court upheld SIR under Art. 324 + Sec. 21(3) RP Act, so the ECI's power to run it is settled. The live dispute is about the procedure, such as adding document requirements [3][4].
• Under Art. 324(5), the CEC has the same tenure protection as a Supreme Court judge. A "public impeachment" therefore has no legal effect: removal needs a parliamentary process [2].
• Prosecuting a sitting CEC raises a separate question of immunity vs. accountability [7].

Social

• The voters quoted were a single mother asked for Aadhaar "to prove citizenship", a 20-year voter from Chowrangee flagged for a mapping discrepancy, and a living voter marked dead [1].
• Migrants (Kolkata → Delhi), the poor and people with few documents are hit hardest when the burden of proof shifts onto the voter [1].

Ethical / Governance

• The ECI's credibility rests on its being seen as neutral. Opposition claims of dissent inside the Commission and the ECI's insistence on "unanimity" show how much trust has eroded [5].
• Concerns came from both sides: even NDA allies sought clarification, which suggests the worry goes beyond one camp [6].

Administrative

• SIR depends on house-to-house verification and mapping voters to earlier rolls. Mapping errors lead to notices and deletions [1].
• Form 6 was designed for routine enrolment, which makes it a poor fit for an intensive revision [4].

Political / Federal

• The SIR ran in poll-bound States such as Bihar and West Bengal, so revising the rolls became a political contest between the Centre and the States [1][9].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• The ECI announced the SIR in Bihar [9].
• May 2026: the Supreme Court upheld the ECI's power to conduct SIR [3][10].
• ~23 Sept 2026: the Opposition demanded the CEC's arrest. The ECI cited "unanimity" in its decisions [5].
• ~25 Sept 2026: the CEC removal row and NDA allies seeking clarification [2][6].
• ~30 Sept 2026: reporting on whether the CEC can face prosecution [7].
• ~10 Oct 2026: the Supreme Court tested the limits of ECI power in the Form 6 row [4].
• ~13 Oct 2026: Rahul Gandhi's plea was not listed because of defects [8].
• 31 Oct 2026: the INDIA bloc's "public impeachment" of CEC Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi [1].

Dates marked "~" are taken from the article URLs. The search snippets did not state them.

7. Prelims Hooks

• The CEC can be removed only like a Supreme Court judge: Article 324(5) [2].
• Grounds for removal: proved misbehaviour or incapacity [2].
• Election Commissioners can be removed only on the CEC's recommendation [2].
• No CEC has ever been removed by Parliament [2].
• The ECI's power to conduct SIR comes from Article 324 + Section 21(3) of the RP Act [3].
• The Supreme Court upheld SIR in May 2026 [3].
• The first SIR in this cycle was announced for Bihar [9].
• Form 6 is the enrolment form in the SIR dispute [4].
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was founded by Nikhil Dey (among others) [1].
• The "public impeachment" was a symbolic INDIA bloc event with no constitutional status [1][2].
• Present CEC: Gyanesh Kumar [1].

8. Who Has to Prove Citizenship: The Voter or the State?

• This question is at the centre of the whole dispute
• In Lal Babu Hussein v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court said the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not with voters who are already on the roll [16].

• It also held that a voter already on the list cannot be removed without notice and due process (a fair hearing before action is taken) [16].

• The ECI's position flips this burden

• The ECI told the Supreme Court it has the right to "verify citizenship". It said the needed documents are within the "special knowledge" of the person who claims to be a citizen, so that person must produce them [17].
• It also said it was not deciding citizenship, only checking whether a person is eligible to be on the roll [17].

• In practice, a 20-year voter who gets a "mapping discrepancy" notice must now prove eligibility again, which is the experience voters described at the event [1].

• The 2026 ruling took a middle path

• The Supreme Court accepted that the ECI can look into citizenship, but only to decide who is included in or excluded from the roll [10].
• A name already on the roll carries a presumption of citizenship (the law assumes the person is a citizen). This can be overturned only through a "proper and appropriate inquiry" [10].
• A deletion is not a legal finding that the person is not a citizen. Cases deleted on citizenship grounds must be sent within four weeks to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [10].

• The Court separately said citizenship must be decided through a fair and reasonable process [19].

• Why this matters for the exam: the Court upheld the power to run the SIR but kept the protection for existing voters. Use both halves in a Mains answer.

9. What the Bihar Deletion Numbers Show and Hide

• The first cut was very large
• The Bihar draft roll of 1 August 2025 had 7.24 crore voters and left out more than 65 lakh earlier names [11].

• Reasons given: death (22.34 lakh), "permanently shifted/absent" (36.28 lakh) and enrolled at more than one place (7.01 lakh) [11][12].

• The biggest category is also the weakest

• "Shifted/absent" is more than half of all deletions [11][12].
• A death or a duplicate entry can be checked against a record. "Absent" often just means the field officer did not find the person at home.

• Seasonal migrants are exactly the people who are away from home. The Kolkata-to-Delhi voters in the article show this pattern [1].

• Many first deletions did not hold up

• After claims and corrections, deletions fell from about 65 lakh to about 47 lakh. Electors went from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [10].

• So roughly 18 lakh names were dropped in the draft and later corrected. The mistakes cost those voters time and documents to fix.

• Aadhaar was kept out at first

• Aadhaar was not on the ECI's original list of 11 documents [13]. The ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms, a civil-society group) called this "absurd" [16].
• The Supreme Court said the list was not exhaustive and allowed deleted voters to file claims using Aadhaar [13].
• It also said Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of citizenship and must be verified [15]. This is the confusion the Delhi single mother faced [1].

10. The Strongest Case for the SIR — and Where It Falls Short

• The case for it is real
• Rolls that carry dead voters and duplicates can be misused for fake voting.
• In Bihar, about 29 lakh draft deletions were for death or double enrolment [11][12]. Cleaning these up helps free and fair elections.

• The Supreme Court called the SIR "necessary for free and fair polls" [3].

• What the critics concede: a fresh, house-to-house revision is a lawful tool under Art. 324 and Sec. 21(3) of the RP Act, 1950 [3].

• Where the argument stops working
• Removing dead and duplicate names needs death records and de-duplication. It does not need every existing voter to prove citizenship.
• Shifting the burden onto voters mostly hits the poor, migrants and people with few documents. They are the least able to answer a notice quickly [1].

• The Supreme Court itself called the Bihar row "largely a trust deficit issue" [14]. Accuracy alone is not enough; voters must also believe the process is fair.

• Fair conclusion: the goal is valid. The method should match the goal: target dead and duplicate entries hard, and protect existing voters with a presumption of eligibility [10].

11. Why a Symbolic 'Impeachment' Was the Only Tool Left

• Removal is built to be nearly impossible
• Art. 324(5) gives the CEC the same protection as a Supreme Court judge: removal only by Parliament, for proved misbehaviour or incapacity [2].
• No CEC has ever been removed this way [2]. An Opposition without a majority cannot start a process that can actually succeed.

• This protection exists so a government cannot punish a CEC for ruling against it. The same shield also protects a CEC from an Opposition that has lost trust in them.

• The other routes are narrow

• Criminal prosecution of a sitting CEC raises open questions about immunity [7].

• Court challenges move slowly. Rahul Gandhi's plea was not even listed because of filing defects [8].

• So the fight moved to public opinion

• The 31 October event had no legal effect [1][2]. Its purpose was to put affected voters' stories in front of the public.

• Even NDA allies asked the ECI for clarification [6]. This shows the trust problem is not only a government-versus-Opposition quarrel.

• The real gap: India has a strong tool to protect the CEC's independence. It has no middle-level tool to make the ECI explain specific decisions, short of removal.

12. Safeguards the ECI and Courts Can Build In

• ECI: no deletion without notice and a written reason, in every State
• The ECI promised the Supreme Court that no Bihar name would be deleted without notice and a reasoned order [18].

• This follows Lal Babu Hussein (1995) [16]. It should be written into SIR rules for every State, not given as a case-by-case promise.

• ECI: publish deleted names with reasons, by booth

• After the Supreme Court asked, the ECI made public the names of 65 lakh deleted Bihar voters [11][12].

• Doing this from the start lets a voter check their own name and file a claim before the deadline.

• ECI: send citizenship doubts to the right authority

• Field officers should not decide citizenship. The 2026 ruling sends such cases to the authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [10].

• The ECI should treat this as the normal route, not an exception.

• ECI: accept Aadhaar for identity at the claims stage

• The Supreme Court allowed Aadhaar for claims [13], while noting it does not prove citizenship [15].

• Using Aadhaar to confirm who a person is cuts wrongful "absent" and "mapping discrepancy" deletions. Citizenship stays a separate check.

• Parliament: create a way to hold the ECI to account below removal

• For example, a duty to place an SIR report before Parliament, giving deletions by reason and by State.
• This answers the trust deficit the Supreme Court pointed out [14] without weakening the Art. 324(5) protection.

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Bihar draft roll dropped 65 lakh+ names: death 22.34 lakh, shifted/absent 36.28 lakh, duplicate 7.01 lakh [11][12]; later cut to about 47 lakh, with electors falling from 7.89 crore to 7.42 crore [10]
• Law/Case: Lal Babu Hussein v. Union of India (1995): burden of proving citizenship lies on new applicants; no removal without notice [16]
• Law/Case: Supreme Court SIR ruling (May 2026): a roll entry carries a rebuttable presumption of citizenship; citizenship-based deletions must be referred within four weeks under the Citizenship Act, 1955 [10]
• Law/Case: Art. 324(5): CEC removal like a Supreme Court judge; never used [2]
• Quote: Supreme Court called the Bihar SIR row "largely a trust deficit issue" [14]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity. Covers appointment to various constitutional posts and the powers, functions and responsibilities of constitutional bodies (the ECI), salient features of the RP Act, and the Supreme Court's role.
• GS-IV: Probity in governance, institutional integrity and public trust.
• Question stems: 1. "The power to revise electoral rolls must be balanced against the universality of adult franchise." Examine this in light of the Special Intensive Revision. 2. Does the constitutional protection given to the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324(5) ensure independence, accountability, or both? Discuss. 3. How can the burden of proving eligibility shift onto voters during roll revisions? Suggest safeguards to prevent wrongful deletion.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• CEC & Other ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service) Act, 2023: the appointment process and debates over the ECI's independence.
• Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023): the Supreme Court's ruling on the panel that appoints ECs.
• Removal of judges (Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968): the procedure that CEC removal mirrors [2].
• RP Act, 1950 vs. RP Act, 1951: rolls and registration vs. how elections are conducted.
• Aadhaar–voter ID linking: Aadhaar as identity proof, not proof of citizenship [1].
• Citizenship Act, 1955 / NRC: the overlap between checking voters and checking citizenship.
• Model Code of Conduct and ECI neutrality: the institutional-trust theme [5].

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Special Intensive Revision (Polity): This is the roll-revision exercise whose deletions voters are protesting and the Supreme Court has examined.
• Chief Election Commissioner (Polity): The 'public impeachment' targets the CEC, whose removal is protected like that of a Supreme Court judge.
• Removal of judges (Polity): Article 324(5) says the CEC can be removed only like a judge, so this procedure explains why the event had no legal effect.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): Its Article 324 powers over electoral rolls are the basis on which the Supreme Court upheld the SIR.
• Right to vote (Polity): Wrongful deletions raise the question of how far voting is protected, and whether it is a statutory or fundamental right.
• Electoral roll (Polity): Deleted names, mapping errors and the burden of proof all concern how rolls are prepared and revised.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• The CEC is not removed by the President alone. Parliament must act through the Supreme Court judge procedure. Only other ECs are removed on the CEC's recommendation [2].
• The "public impeachment" was a symbolic political event, not a parliamentary motion [1][2].
• The Supreme Court upheld the power to conduct SIR. That does not end every challenge to how it was carried out (Form 6, documents) [3][4].
• Section 21 of the RP Act, 1950 (electoral rolls) is a different law from the RP Act, 1951 (conduct of elections).
• Aadhaar ≠ proof of citizenship. Voters in the article were confused about exactly this [1].