Kapil Sibal Alleges Election Commission Decisions Were “Unilateral,” Demands FIR Against Officials

In a sharply worded press briefing, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal launched a scathing critique of the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging that virtually every major decision taken over the past ten months—from the Bihar election to the West Bengal polls—was made unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, without the consent, knowledge, or input of the Commission’s other two members.

Also Read: TMC Name-Symbol Freeze: Can the Election Commission Freeze a Political Party’s Identity?

“Not Consensus, But One Man’s Decisions”

According to Sibal, the Election Commission’s own press note issued on 26 September, following a meeting of all three commissioners, effectively admits as much. He pointed out that the Chief Election Commissioner himself conceded that past decisions were “not taken by consensus”—meaning”, in Sibal’s words, that they were Gyanesh Kumar’s decisions alone, not decisions of the Commission as a body.

Compounding this, Sibal alleged that no agenda was ever circulated ahead of Commission meetings, and no minutes were maintained of what was discussed or decided. As a result, he said, the other two commissioners were kept in the dark both before and after key decisions were taken, leaving them no opportunity to record dissent or offer input.

Ten Months of Unchecked Authority

Sibal traced this pattern back roughly ten months, coinciding with the announcement of the Bihar election in June and running through to the conclusion of the West Bengal election cycle. Throughout this period, he claimed, the Chief Election Commissioner exercised sweeping authority over the electoral process without institutional checks—something he suggested was not accidental.

“Obviously, Gyanesh Kumar didn’t want input from the other commissioners, and the government didn’t want it either,” Sibal said, “because they had their man in place.”

Also Read: If I Were Defending Mamata Banerjee: How I Would Fight to Save TMC’s Name and “Flowers & Grass” Symbol

Centralization Through ECINet and the Role of the ERO

A central plank of Sibal’s argument concerns the Election Commission’s own notification dated 24 June 2025, which he read out at the briefing. That notification, he said, clearly assigns the authority to add or delete names from the electoral rolls—during any Special Intensive Revision (SIR)—to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), with the explicit responsibility of ensuring no eligible citizen is wrongly excluded and no ineligible person is wrongly included.

Sibal alleged that this authority was instead stripped from the EROs and centralized through the ECINet system, with deletions and additions reportedly being carried out from Delhi under the supervision of an official he named Seema Khanna.

This, he argued, directly violated both the Commission’s own 24 June notification—which the 26 September note itself acknowledges was passed unanimously—and the Representation of the People Act, which vests this decision-making power in the ERO, not in a centralized authority.

If accurate, Sibal contended, this would mean that every election conducted during this period—from Bihar to West Bengal—was carried out in violation of the law.

Key Issue Raised by Sibal

• Authority over electoral-roll additions and deletions.
• The role of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
• The alleged use of the ECINet system for centralized decisions.
• The legal effect of the Election Commission’s 24 June notification.
• The alleged impact on elections conducted during the period.

Questions Over Missing Data and Door-to-Door Verification

Sibal also raised pointed questions about the absence of any official data justifying the SIR exercise in the first place. He noted that neither the Supreme Court nor the Election Commission has disclosed how many voters were found to be genuinely ineligible and rightly removed from the rolls—even as, in his telling, lakhs of eligible voters were wrongly deleted. Without that number, he argued, the entire justification for the exercise remains unsubstantiated.

He further alleged that Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who were meant under the 24 June notification to visit homes to collect documentation before any names were uploaded to ECINet, largely failed to do so—a lapse the Commission has now implicitly admitted by promising renewed door-to-door visits going forward.

On the matter of Form 6, Sibal claimed that changes made to the form—removing references to parents’ or grandparents’ electoral history for elections not covered by SIR—were made without the required central government notification, rendering the change legally questionable as well.

Immunity Provision Under Fire

Sibal drew attention to a 2023 amendment to the 1991 Election Commission Act, under Section 16, which grants Election Commissioners lifetime immunity from criminal proceedings—a protection he noted exceeds even that afforded to the President of India or state Governors, whose immunity lasts only for their term in office.

He suggested the rationale behind such an unusually broad and permanent immunity was itself telling and expressed confidence that the Supreme Court, where the matter is currently under consideration, would strike it down.

Notably, Sibal pointed out that the official he named—Seema Khanna—enjoys no such immunity and called for an immediate FIR and arrest in connection with the alleged ECINet centralization, arguing that this would ultimately widen the scope of accountability beyond the Chief Election Commissioner alone.

He additionally alleged, without providing documentary evidence in the briefing, that Gyanesh Kumar had encouraged a former IAS batchmate to contest elections on a BJP ticket during his civil service career—an assertion he offered as evidence of a longstanding political alignment.

“This Is Not a Small Crime”

Framing the issue as one of fundamental rights, Sibal argued that a citizen’s vote is not merely a ballot but a form of legal entitlement tied to welfare benefits guaranteed by Parliament—describing it as “valuable property” that, in his view, was unlawfully taken from voters.

He characterized the alleged conduct as amounting to sedition and reiterated his call for accountability to begin with Seema Khanna before extending further up the chain.

He also cited turnout figures from Maharashtra, where he claimed actual voting numbers came in roughly 6% below population-based estimates—a pattern he said runs counter to rising voter turnout in every election since the 1950s, which he attributed to a mix of wrongful deletions and wrongful additions to the rolls.

Commission Should Be “In the Dustbin,” Says Sibal

Responding to a question about the BJP’s continued defense of the Election Commission, Sibal suggested that the closeness of that defense was itself revealing and said the fact that the Commission’s own 26 September note effectively validated earlier reporting on the matter vindicated his side’s original criticism.

He closed with a blunt assessment: an institution that keeps neither agenda nor minutes, he said, does not function as a commission at all—and “belongs in the dustbin.”

Editorial Note on the Claims

The claims outlined above are those made by Kapil Sibal at the press briefing and reflect his allegations and interpretation of events. The Election Commission of India’s official position, as stated in its 26 September press note, and any response from the individuals named have not been independently verified in this article.

Also Read: Corporate Law in India for Foreign Companies, U.S. Businesses & Investors

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did Kapil Sibal allege about the Election Commission of India?

Kapil Sibal alleged that several major Election Commission decisions were taken unilaterally by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the consent, knowledge, or input of the other two Election Commissioners. He also questioned the absence of agendas and minutes for Commission meetings.

2. What is the ECINet controversy raised by Kapil Sibal?

Kapil Sibal alleged that authority over additions and deletions from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) was centralized through the ECINet system instead of remaining with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs). He argued that this raised questions under the Election Commission’s own notification and the Representation of the People Act.

3. What did Kapil Sibal say about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

Sibal questioned the official data supporting the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. He also alleged that eligible voters were wrongly deleted and raised concerns about door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers before voter information was uploaded to ECINet.

4. What did Kapil Sibal say about immunity for election commissioners?

Kapil Sibal raised concerns about the statutory immunity available to Election Commissioners from criminal proceedings. He argued that the scope and duration of the protection required judicial scrutiny and referred to the matter being considered by the Supreme Court.

5. Why did Kapil Sibal demand an FIR against an Election Commission official?

Kapil Sibal called for an FIR and arrest concerning his allegations about the centralization of electoral-roll changes through ECINet. He specifically named Seema Khanna and argued that accountability should extend beyond the Chief Election Commissioner if wrongdoing were established.

Also Read: How to File Divorce in Delhi: Complete Guide to Jurisdiction, Maintenance, Child Custody, and Family Court Procedure

Key Takeaways: Kapil Sibal’s Allegations Against the Election Commission

• Kapil Sibal has alleged unilateral decision-making: Sibal claimed that several major Election Commission decisions were taken by Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar without the consent or input of the other two Election Commissioners.
• Questions have been raised about Commission meetings: According to Sibal, agendas were not circulated and minutes were not maintained for important Election Commission meetings, potentially limiting the opportunity for commissioners to record dissent.
• ECINet and electoral-roll authority are central to the controversy: Sibal alleged that powers relating to additions and deletions from electoral rolls during Special Intensive Revision (SIR) were centralized through ECINet instead of being exercised by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).
• The 24 June 2025 Election Commission notification is significant: Sibal relied on this notification to argue that EROs were responsible for ensuring that eligible voters were not excluded and ineligible voters were not included in electoral rolls.
• Questions were raised about voter deletion data: Sibal questioned the availability of official data showing how many voters were actually found ineligible and lawfully removed during the electoral-roll revision process.
• Door-to-door voter verification was questioned: Sibal alleged that Booth Level Officers did not consistently conduct the required verification before information was uploaded to ECINet and raised concerns about the subsequent need for renewed verification.
• Form 6 changes were also challenged: Sibal questioned whether changes relating to electoral history and voter-registration information were made with the legally required notification from the Central Government.
• Election Commissioner immunity was criticized: Sibal raised concerns about the statutory protection available to election commissioners from criminal proceedings and argued that the issue requires judicial scrutiny.
• Sibal demanded accountability: He called for an FIR and arrest concerning his allegations about the alleged centralization of electoral-roll changes through ECINet, specifically naming Seema Khanna.
• The allegations remain disputed claims: The article reports Sibal’s statements and interpretation of events. The Election Commission of India’s official position and responses from the individuals named should be considered separately before drawing conclusions.

Bottom Line

The central issue raised in the article is whether electoral-roll revision, Election Commission decision-making, ECINet operations, and voter verification were conducted in accordance with the Election Commission’s procedures and applicable law. The allegations attributed to Kapil Sibal require consideration alongside the Election Commission’s official position and any subsequent judicial findings.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965