- 23 minutes ago
A fierce debate unfolds over allegations of illegality and internal dissent within the Election Commission of India following investigative revelations. Political analyst Yogendra Yadav, Congress spokesperson Adil Singh Boparai, BJP national media co-convener Siddharth Yadav, and analyst Rajat Sethi debate the conduct of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The discussion centers on allegations that decisions regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and Form 6 modifications were pushed without the requisite consensus of fellow Election Commissioners. Yogendra Yadav demands that all three commissioners step down and that elections conducted under the revision be annulled, labeling the moves unconstitutional. Adil Singh Boparai demands Gyanesh Kumar's resignation and alleges statutory violations, while Siddharth Yadav defends the panel's unanimous final decisions under the 2023 Act. Concluding the debate, the anchor calls for an independent forensic audit of the voter roll software, asserting that 'no election, I repeat, no election under Gyanesh Kumar's leadership can be seen as credible and honest.'
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Okay, let's widen the debate. I'm joined now by Yogendra Yadav, co-founder Swaraj India,
00:05who's been consistently raising red flags against the SIR exercise.
00:09Siddharth Yadav, national media co-convener BJP, also advocate at the Supreme Court.
00:14Adil Singh Boparai, national spokesperson, Congress, also an advocate at the courts.
00:18And Rajat Sethi, political analyst, who's worked in the past on BJP's election campaign.
00:24I want to come to each of you. I'll start with you, Siddharth.
00:26But since so far, we've heard all critical voices of Gyanesh Kumar and indeed of the way the election commission
00:32has functioned.
00:33Some are going to the extent of saying all these elections under his leadership are suspect.
00:38Some want them to be cancelled, want Gyanesh Kumar to be arrested.
00:41Is the Modi government going to defend an election commissioner who's overruling his two colleagues
00:46who are calling his decisions unauthorized and illegal?
00:54Good evening, Rajdeep. Good evening to all your viewers.
00:57Rajdeep, I think that the sensationalizing of the entire episode of the allegations that have been put on election commission
01:07done by the opposition in this country today should not be done and it is immature of the opposition to
01:13do so.
01:14Why I am saying this?
01:15Let me put forth just two points to plainly put up what I feel about this and what BJP feels
01:22about this.
01:22Now, we have the 2023 Act, Rajdeep, where in Section 18 of the Act makes dissent part of the statute.
01:30Having dissent in the process of election commission, having dissent in the process of deliberation is not extraordinary,
01:38neither it is not called for.
01:40In any democratic institution, dissent is part of that.
01:43Now, if someone puts out internal notes from 10 months and 14 such notes where, say, dissent is recorded
01:50or there are differing opinions, when elections of major states are also happening,
01:55I don't see a reason why it has to be sensationalized.
01:58This is point number one.
02:00Point number two, when my…
02:02No, but this is not dissent, this is calling…
02:04No, no, one minute, this is not just dissent, this is calling…
02:07No, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, sir, it's not just dissent, Siddharth,
02:11they are calling the decisions illegal and unauthorized.
02:14That's much more than just routine dissent.
02:16And these are serious issues involving lacks of deletions and additions.
02:25No, Rajdeep, I would disagree with you on that.
02:2840 new steps, new decisions have been taken in the past 10 months by the election commission.
02:35You give me one formal dissent note on a decision that has been taken.
02:39When a decision is taken and that decision is unanimous,
02:43when we don't have one dissent note on a final decision that is taken,
02:46how do we come to a conclusion that there was a dissent?
02:49This is point number one.
02:50Point number two, I'll give you one more logical explanation to this.
02:53Section 18.2 of the 2023 Act gives you that either the decision has to be unanimous
03:01or there has to be a majority.
03:03When the two election commissioners, when everybody is saying were against the decision,
03:08they are the majority.
03:10How can a decision be taken?
03:11If their dissent is there on record, when finally it is being decided,
03:15that decision cannot be passed because there is no supremacy to the CEC.
03:19This is by, you know, a precedent by the Honorable Supreme Court,
03:23which is included in the Act of the 2023.
03:26If both the election commissioners were not agreeing to any one act or any one decision of the election commission,
03:34that decision could not have been taken.
03:36So, I don't find the logic behind this.
03:38I don't understand where and how people are coming to the conclusion that there were no consensus when the final
03:46decision came out.
03:47Now, Rajdeep, there are two things.
03:49When internal deliberation is happening, if someone records and someone says that, you know, one step,
03:54we feel in the deliberation is illegal.
03:56There is a difference in deliberation when it is called illegal and the final outcome comes out.
04:01It's not like a Supreme Court bench calling out a decision illegal which has a finality.
04:06It is an election commission which is deliberating.
04:09Election commissioners are deliberating.
04:11If a note is given where they feel, you know, at this stage, whatever the case may have been at
04:16that point of time,
04:17whatever must have been going into finality, if they have a note to give, they have given that note.
04:22But has that dissent been recorded when the final decision was being taken?
04:26Absolutely not.
04:27So, how do you come to this conclusion that there was no consensus?
04:31Please, somebody explain me that.
04:33That is what I'm concerned about.
04:36Okay. Let Adil Singh Boparai explain that.
04:40Adil Singh Boparai, the fact is, there is a point there that on record, on record, the decisions were taken
04:46unanimously.
04:47That's what the press release is also saying.
04:49That there were disagreements in terms of opinion, but eventually the decisions were unanimous.
04:55Do you believe that therefore your case or the opposition's case would be much stronger
05:00if there were recorded dissents, which then could be used to suggest that Gyanesh Kumar overruled them
05:07and thereby committed an act of illegality under Section 18 of the Act?
05:13Mr. Sardisai, the BJP's sound and fury cannot hide the facts.
05:19If Mr. Gyanesh Gupta has an iota of shame left, he should tender his resignation.
05:24Now, let me deal with the assertions of my friend from the BJP.
05:27Number one, Ms. Hrithika's article very clearly reveals that it is not just a process of internal noting prior to
05:37decision making.
05:37There have been instances, for example, one, who authorized the filing of the appeals?
05:43Number two, who authorized the change of Form 6?
05:47Now, this is very crucial and this targets the first-time voters.
05:51Form 6 is a statutory document.
05:54What you notice from the Indian Express investigation is that there was an insertion of a clause which said
06:01that the first-time voter must indicate whether his parent or his grandparents were part of the previous SIR.
06:08Once the form has been changed, it is at that stage that Mr. Sandhu said
06:12who authorized the changing of the form, number one, and as a corollary, this can only be done by the
06:19government of India.
06:20So, my friend should not play with facts.
06:23He should not indulge in verbal acrobatics.
06:25Here is a situation where despite the opposition of two election commissioners,
06:31you have Mr. Gyanesh Kumar, a compromised individual,
06:35with the aid of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister,
06:38authorizing orders by misrepresenting,
06:41and I'm saying this very consciously,
06:44by misrepresenting that these are the orders of the election commission of India,
06:48number two, number three,
06:50the same clause...
06:51But shouldn't they have walked out then?
06:52No, no, but shouldn't they have walked out then?
06:55Then the election commissioners should have walked out.
06:57If the election commissioners' opinion on a serious issue like Form 6 was being overruled
07:02and they had the majority,
07:04either they should have forced their view
07:06or they should have walked out and exposed Gyanesh Kumar much earlier.
07:10I can respond.
07:11Ideally, all the three election commissioners should come out and address the media.
07:15But having said this on behalf of the Congress Party,
07:18and I hope Mr. Gupta is watching your program,
07:21on behalf of the Congress,
07:22let me assure the election commission of India
07:26that on returning to power,
07:28we will repeal the provision which provides for lifelong immunity from prosecution
07:33for all election commissioners who've indulged in acts of omission and commission.
07:38This is treachery,
07:39this is treason,
07:41this is fraud
07:41with the voters of this country.
07:47I want to bring in Yogendra Yadav,
07:49because Yogendra Yadav,
07:50out of all these various issues which have come up,
07:53the most serious one seems to be the manner in which a centralized software,
07:57seemingly,
07:57just a minute sir,
07:58just a minute,
07:59no, no,
07:59just a minute Mr. Yadav,
08:01a seemingly,
08:02one of the most serious issues seems to be the manner in which
08:05a centralized software was being used to overrule,
08:08to overrule what the SDM or the ERO on the ground,
08:13the election registration officer was,
08:14the electoral registration officer was doing,
08:17and thereby possibly putting in additional deletions,
08:19and in the case of Goa,
08:21even after documents were provided by 97 voters,
08:25the software said no,
08:26they are not eligible.
08:28Is that the most serious thing,
08:30according to you,
08:31because the government says they are,
08:32or the election commission says there's full data security,
08:36full cyber security,
08:37no one can infiltrate this centralized software system,
08:40and deal with it arbitrarily?
08:44Rajdeep,
08:46the election commission's explanation today is rather funny.
08:49They are answering questions which no one asks,
08:51no one says it's infiltration.
08:53The question being asked is,
08:56that the CEC authorized some people working within the election commission's office,
09:02to do things which were completely illegal,
09:05according to the law of the land.
09:08Anything to do with voters list is the prerogative of the ERO,
09:12which is usually an SDM,
09:13and then appeal goes to the DM,
09:16and appeal goes to CEO.
09:17Election commission sitting in Delhi has nothing to do with it,
09:21and the allegation is not that someone infiltrated.
09:24The allegation is that the election commission,
09:27the chief election commission,
09:29acting on behalf of the election commission,
09:31authorized his own staff,
09:33people working under him,
09:35to carry out this fraudulent act.
09:38And this is not something about which we have come to know today, Rajdeep.
09:41If you remember West Bengal elections,
09:43a number of EROs had officially written to the election commission.
09:49The letter was produced in the courts to say,
09:55notices are being issued in our names without our knowledge,
09:59that from Delhi these notices are being sent.
10:02It's my prerogative to send these notices.
10:04I don't even know who's sending it in my name.
10:06All this is public knowledge, Rajdeep.
10:08This is not new.
10:09What we are witnessing today, Rajdeep,
10:11is not merely impropriety,
10:15not merely a breakdown of norms.
10:18We are looking at illegality, plain and simple.
10:22And this is why what we have witnessed today,
10:24and my thanks to the Indian Express,
10:27you know, the country doesn't normally get to see
10:29this kind of brave journalism,
10:32so I must show this.
10:33I must thank them for it.
10:35This is a tipping point, Rajdeep,
10:37because this is not merely about,
10:39as I said, breakdown of norms.
10:41What it shows is that a constitutional institution,
10:45like the election commission of India,
10:47is working in a completely unconstitutional way,
10:51that it is carrying out illegalities.
10:54Now, change in Form 6.
10:56What is SIR about?
10:58Any revision of voters list is about inclusion and exclusion.
11:02Inclusion is based on Form 6,
11:03and it has been conclusively proven today
11:06that election commission was doing something
11:10which, according to two election commissions of India,
11:14was illegal, namely changing a form,
11:17which is the prerogative of the government,
11:19and then it has to be laid on the parliament's floor.
11:22This was being done by bypassing the parliament.
11:25Now, this is a legal point.
11:26It's not only a difference of opinion.
11:29This is purely an allegation of illegality.
11:33And since someone claimed on behalf of BJP
11:37that the two election commissioners
11:40thereafter said that they are part of the decision,
11:43well, in that case,
11:45they are misleading the country.
11:46Yes.
11:46So let us have a written statement
11:47from these two election commissioners
11:49to say that the point that they were making
11:51about illegality in those letters,
11:53so either someone has to show that those letters are fraud.
11:56Today's election commission's clarification
11:58does not claim that any of those four letters
12:01that the Indian Express has claimed were fraudulent.
12:03So if those letters were not fraudulent,
12:05then you have to demonstrate
12:06that they have withdrawn these allegations,
12:10that they have changed their mind,
12:11and they were misleading the country.
12:13What exactly are we looking at?
12:14And to my mind, Rajdeep,
12:16the overall evidence that we have seen today
12:18points to some absolute basics.
12:21Number one, Mr. Gyanesh Kumar's continuation
12:26as a CEC is untenable.
12:28I would actually go forward
12:30and say something you don't expect.
12:32To my mind,
12:33the continuation of the other two gentlemen
12:35is also untenable
12:37because they are not the one
12:39bringing this information to the country.
12:41What were they doing
12:42if they thought that something illegal was happening?
12:45Two persons,
12:46why did they not requisition
12:48a meeting of the commission?
12:50And if they requisitioned the meeting
12:51and was not being held,
12:53why did they not approach
12:54the president of India?
12:56What were they doing
12:56writing to the cabinet secretary?
12:58Is cabinet secretary
12:59the boss of election commission of India?
13:01So to my mind,
13:02the entire election commission must go.
13:05To my mind,
13:06the evidence that we have seen today
13:08on SIR means that all the SIR
13:12must be completely reviewed
13:14because both inclusion and exclusion
13:17have been shown to be fraudulent.
13:19And to my mind,
13:21all the elections held from Bihar onwards
13:24must be annulled and held afresh.
13:28This is the kind of thing
13:30that we are looking at
13:31and we are witnessing a tipping point.
13:34We had earlier seen this election commission.
13:36We have seen Rajdeep,
13:38this election commission
13:39being accused of Jugalbandi.
13:40We had seen those cringe conference.
13:43We had seen election commission's popularity in DIP.
13:45But today we have seen
13:47nothing short of illegality,
13:50fraudulence and breakdown
13:51of a constitutional institution.
13:56Those are very strong words you are using.
13:58Rajat Sethi,
13:59you heard what Yogendra Yadav is saying,
14:02annull elections that have taken place since Bihar,
14:04all three election commissioners must go
14:06because they have effectively participated
14:08or endorsed an illegality,
14:10particularly when it comes to Form 6.
14:12How do you respond?
14:13Do you believe this is an exaggeration,
14:15a sensationalism,
14:16or the election commission
14:18needs to give us more details,
14:20not just one perfunctory press release
14:22released by some junior officer?
14:26Well, I agree, Rajdeep Ji.
14:28I'm not a fan of this EC in any terms,
14:30the way some of the words
14:33that were used by the CEC earlier
14:35to address some of the opposition leaders
14:37were uncalled for.
14:38And therefore,
14:40his public conduct
14:41is not an ideal conduct.
14:43But the revelations that have happened
14:45through the Indian Express,
14:48they call into question,
14:49there are some very,
14:51very serious questions that are there.
14:52A, the two election commissioners,
14:55I mean,
14:55they are,
14:56the CEC is only first among the equals.
14:59The three election commissioners
15:02could have sat together
15:04on these deliberations.
15:05Did the two commissioners
15:07disagree collectively on a certain topic,
15:10making the whole decision illegal
15:11ab initio?
15:13Or, you know,
15:14the two commissioners
15:16disagreed on different issues
15:18and the majority was still
15:19with the decision that was taken?
15:21Now, these details we don't know.
15:23There are several such questions
15:24wherein only the election commission
15:26and the three of them
15:27collectively addressing the media
15:29can solve and answer those questions.
15:31Otherwise,
15:32mostly the assumptions
15:33that we are living in
15:34is that these decisions
15:35that were taken by election commission
15:38were illegal
15:39because there was no majority,
15:40if not a consensus.
15:41Now, this,
15:42in order to establish this,
15:45you know,
15:45the best way is that
15:46they come out public,
15:47they show the documents
15:48or whatever.
15:48But also,
15:49the conduct of the two commissioners
15:51when they go to
15:52a cabinet secretary,
15:53I don't know under what rules
15:55did they actually go out
15:56and approach a cabinet secretary
15:57on this question
15:58when clearly they knew
16:00that there is an independence
16:02of this constitutional body,
16:03it's a quasi-judicial body,
16:04and they don't have to go
16:06and show deference
16:07to a cabinet secretary at all.
16:09So, I don't understand
16:10the conduct of the two commissioners
16:11as well.
16:12I also don't understand
16:14the conduct
16:14wherein if the two commissioners
16:16are on one side
16:17on a decision,
16:18they could have called
16:19the full-fledged meeting
16:20of the election commission
16:21on their own
16:22because, as I said,
16:23it's a,
16:24they are first among equals.
16:26They could have called the decision
16:27and annulled those decisions.
16:28So, maybe,
16:30maybe here the question is that
16:32there was a majority number
16:33on these decisions
16:34and this can only and only
16:36be clarified
16:37by the election commission itself.
16:38We can only be doing
16:40kite flying at best
16:41because we really don't know
16:42what has happened.
16:43Maybe there is a full majority
16:45or the majority of the two
16:47that is required
16:48on these decisions
16:48and I think Supreme Court
16:49in all its judgment
16:51on the procedural aspects
16:53of SIR has been,
16:54that's a very different debate.
16:55And Supreme Court
16:56has been monitoring
16:57all of those deliberations
16:58and there's those oral orders
17:01and whatever Supreme Court
17:03has said is there
17:04in black and white
17:04before all of us.
17:05So, I don't go to the extent
17:07of calling into question
17:08the entire SIR process.
17:10Of course,
17:10if the decisions taken by EC
17:12did not have the requisite majority,
17:15then ab initio,
17:16these decisions become null and void.
17:17Now, that is the core legal question
17:20which only the election commission
17:21can answer
17:22and therefore,
17:23it's a crisis
17:24and certainly the election commission
17:26should come out clean
17:26on this collectively.
17:29Rajat, can I just add one line
17:30to what Rajat has said?
17:32I want to give one minute
17:34to Siddharth.
17:35Sir, sir, sir,
17:37Yogendra,
17:38I have to give Siddharth
17:40a last minute
17:41because I don't know
17:41but I want to give him
17:42because everyone has come out
17:44very strongly, critically
17:45against the election commission
17:47today including Rajat.
17:49Siddharth, defend,
17:50are you defending
17:52the indefensible?
17:53The fact is
17:54prima facie
17:56illegalities
17:57seemingly have taken place.
17:59Form 6 is one example of it.
18:01Change is taking place
18:03without necessarily
18:04build...
18:06This should have gone
18:07through parliament.
18:09All of this.
18:10Don't you think
18:11the BJP should also demand
18:12that the election commission
18:13come clean?
18:14Rajat,
18:15otherwise the suspicion is
18:16that the BJP
18:17and the election commission
18:18are in a jugalbandi.
18:23Rajdeep,
18:23neither I am defending
18:24the election commission
18:25nor I need to.
18:26I am defending logic here
18:28but yes,
18:28I do need to defend
18:29the sanctity of all
18:30institutions of our country
18:32as a fellow Indian.
18:33When opposition
18:35would choose
18:35on baseless arguments
18:37to question everything,
18:38all constitutional institutions
18:39of this country,
18:40I think it is
18:41the onus is upon
18:42all of us
18:42to defend the sanctity
18:44on logical grounds.
18:45Now,
18:45just three points,
18:46very basic points.
18:47Number one,
18:48if both the election commissioners
18:49are against one decision
18:51and they find it illegal,
18:53section 18.2
18:54will not let
18:55that decision happen.
18:57It's very clear,
18:58either unanimous
18:59or by majority.
19:00If they were against it,
19:01the majority was against it,
19:03the decision cannot go.
19:04This is point number one.
19:05Point number two,
19:06when we say
19:07about dissent,
19:08dissent is mandated
19:09in the statute.
19:11Dissent has to come in.
19:12Dissent was there.
19:13It was justified
19:14but dissent,
19:15a formal dissent
19:16on a formal decision
19:18has not come out.
19:19Now,
19:19I would not want to be
19:20so illogical to say
19:21no,
19:22when despite
19:23no formal dissent
19:24on a,
19:25without a formal dissent
19:27on a formal outcome
19:29without being there,
19:30I would say
19:30no,
19:31no,
19:31there was no consensus.
19:32I don't want to go
19:32to that conclusion.
19:33Point number three,
19:34when form six is discussed
19:36in May 2026,
19:38the election commission
19:39had come out
19:40with a declaration form.
19:41Now,
19:42declaration,
19:43a separate declaration
19:43form is not
19:44amending form six.
19:46If anybody thinks
19:47that this is illegal,
19:49if anybody thinks
19:49that this is a
19:50change or amendment
19:51to form six,
19:52people are open
19:53to go to the court.
19:54Why would,
19:55why would we want
19:55to take all decisions
19:56here when a separate
19:58declaration form
19:59only to map out
20:00voters is laid out
20:01where a decision
20:02is taken by all
20:03election commissioners
20:04with no formal
20:05dissent note?
20:05I am not defending
20:07the election commission,
20:07Rajdeep,
20:08just defending the logic.
20:10Okay.
20:11Rajdeep,
20:11can I just say one thing?
20:12Okay.
20:14I'm glad.
20:14Rajdeep,
20:15just one thing.
20:16Yes,
20:16yes,
20:16very quickly,
20:17Yogi.
20:17This entire discussion
20:17assumes that election commission
20:19was taking decisions.
20:21On 16th of April,
20:22Mr. Vivek Joshi
20:23is saying
20:24there are no agenda,
20:26there are no minutes.
20:28So,
20:29where is the question
20:29of dissent?
20:30In fact,
20:31election commission
20:31is not taking decisions.
20:33Both of them are saying
20:34we learn about decisions
20:35from the media.
20:37This is the reality.
20:38Of course,
20:39I blame all the three
20:40for this.
20:40But let us not get
20:42into this formal
20:42nuances of dissent.
20:44When no decisions
20:45are being taken,
20:46when no minutes
20:46are being kept,
20:47this is a complete
20:48fraudulence
20:49of a constitutionalist
20:50situation.
20:50Can I just get 30 seconds,
20:52Mr. Sartre?
20:53Oh my goodness.
20:53The election,
20:54the election,
20:55the election,
20:55I've heard all.
20:5830 seconds.
21:00Can I just get 30 seconds?
21:0230 seconds.
21:02Mr. Sartre Sai,
21:03the election commission
21:04of India
21:05has been replaced
21:06with a criminal enterprise.
21:07It's been replaced
21:09with a criminal enterprise
21:10where you have
21:11one election commissioner
21:13masquerading his majority
21:14and issuing orders.
21:16His colleagues
21:16are coming out
21:17on the file
21:18saying
21:18when our commission
21:20has not been
21:22courted.
21:22You,
21:23this is,
21:24okay,
21:25I've heard all of you
21:26patiently.
21:26I've heard all of you
21:27patiently.
21:28Time for my thing.
21:29I appreciate all of you
21:31joining us.
21:31The election commission,
21:33my friends,
21:34cannot brush aside
21:35the latest revelations
21:36of the Indian Express
21:37as an internal disagreement
21:39or hide behind
21:40the word
21:41collective
21:42or of formal
21:43orders.
21:44Two of its
21:45own election commissioners
21:47have repeatedly
21:48raised concerns
21:49about the centralized
21:50control of the
21:51electoral roll software
21:53of the manner
21:54in which Form 6
21:55was being pushed,
21:56including giving us
21:58instances in the case
21:59of the software
22:00where ground level
22:01officers were not
22:02implementing
22:03or were not allowed
22:04to implement decisions
22:06they were legally
22:07empowered to take
22:08or they were overruled.
22:10So this is,
22:10there is only one
22:11credible way now
22:12to settle this.
22:13An independent
22:14forensic audit
22:15of the software
22:17and its audit trails,
22:18every addition,
22:19deletion,
22:20modification and reversal
22:21across every state
22:23and constituency.
22:23Who made the change?
22:25where, when,
22:27under whose authorization
22:28and whether the
22:29statutory officer's
22:30decision was
22:31overridden
22:32must all be
22:33established.
22:33This is not about
22:34the integrity
22:35of the voter list,
22:36not about,
22:37this is about the
22:38integrity of the
22:38voter list,
22:39not about partisan
22:40politics.
22:41And as the chief
22:42election commissioner,
22:43Gyanesh Kumar
22:44cannot escape
22:45responsibility
22:46by saying the
22:47commission functions
22:48collectively.
22:50Also,
22:51his two colleagues
22:52must also come on
22:53record and tell us
22:55whether they
22:55eventually agreed
22:56with the decisions
22:57that were being
22:58taken.
22:58The buck must
23:00stop somewhere,
23:01my friends.
23:02And frankly,
23:03it must stop
23:04with the chief
23:04election commissioner.
23:06He must be the
23:07one who must
23:08answer.
23:08And if he doesn't
23:09do so satisfactorily,
23:11then no election,
23:13I repeat,
23:14no election,
23:14under Gyanesh Kumar's
23:16leadership,
23:17can be seen
23:18as credible
23:19and honest.
23:21Think about it.
23:22Do you think the