‘No Protection For Acts Done in Violation of Rules’: Former Minister R.K. Singh Calls for Criminal Case Against CEC

New Delhi: A day after slamming the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in an open letter and demanding criminal cases against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, Former Union home secretary R.K. Singh has clarified that the immunity against prosecution granted to the three election commissioners does not extend to "acts done in violation of the laws and rules".

A day earlier, he had written a scathing open letter saying criminal cases should be filed against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. To this, he received responses suggesting the CEC has immunity from criminal proceedings under Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. That information, he said, was "incorrect".

"Some people have referred to the immunity against prosecution granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under Sec 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Appointments Act 2023. This protection is available to the CEC and ECs only for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. It does not give any protection for acts done in violation of the laws and rules; because violation of laws and rules are not part of discharge of official duties of the CEC and the ECs. So they can be prosecuted for acts done in violation of the law," Singh wrote in a post on X.

Please refer to my post on X on the 28th of September 2026 regarding violation of laws by the CEC and the ECs; and the need for prosecution them.

Some people have referred to the immunity against prosecution granted to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election…

— R. K. Singh (@RajKSinghIndia) September 30, 2026

In the open letter, he wrote that this was the first time in India’s history that the government was on a mission to disenfranchise people. “[Until] now, the efforts of the Government and the Election Commission have always been to enroll all eligible voters. It was a mission to deepen democracy and empower all citizens. This is the first time in the history of the country that the mission is to disenfranchise people,” Singh wrote.

Singh said that the SIR has been conducted in violation of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. He also raised questions about Kumar’s role and the decision-making process within the poll panel.

The former minister said Section 21 of the Act permits a special revision only in special cases, with reasons recorded in writing and for a constituency or part of a constituency. 

“An order for intensive revision for the whole country was illegal. An exception allowed for special cases cannot become the rule. The Supreme Court order upholding the general SIR was wrong. Another question is - who took the decision for SIR in the whole country? Was it the full commission; or only Gyanesh Kumar,” Singh wrote on X.

Singh also alleged that the Election Commission’s use of revised electoral rolls – while appeals against the deletions were still pending – was illegal as section 21 of the Act says that the original electoral roll shall remain in force until the disposal of all appeals.

“The revised electoral rolls become complete only after all the appeals filed against inclusion or deletion are disposed off. Where the appeals were still pending, the original Electoral roll which was valid on the date of notification was to be used. Contrary to this the new roll with deletions was used during the elections even though appeals against deletions were still pending. This was illegal,” Singh said.

He further alleged that voters were removed without following the procedure mentioned under Section 22 of the Act and said that the EC’s move was “blatantly illegal”.

“Section 22 of the RP Act provides that the Electoral Registration Officer, and not anyone else, can remove a voter's name from the roll and that also only on the grounds listed in Section 22(a), (b), and (c); and only after a specific enquiry, after giving the concerned person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and only after appeals against his order are disposed off. Gyanesh Kumar removed the names of all the voters who had been listed by the EROs after 2003, without any basis, without any enquiry, and without any show cause to the registered voters. This was blatantly illegal,” Singh alleged.

Citing the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officer and Others, Singh said the burden of producing evidence to establish that an enrolled voter should be disqualified lies with the authorities, rather than the voter.

Singh also questioned the addition of an appendix to Form 6, alleging that Kumar added it despite the opposition of two election commissioners. He said the appendix required applicants to provide the serial number of their parents’ names in the 2003 electoral roll, which he argued created difficulties for young voters trying to register themselves as new voters.

The former home secretary also raised questions over bulk objections filed through Form, asking who filed the objections, how they were accepted and acted upon, and why the people who signed the forms did not appear.

On West Bengal, Singh claimed that 16 lakh voters found eligible by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) were not included in the electoral roll because the EC had filed appeals against their inclusion, while in Goa, 97 voters were left off the rolls despite the ERO finding them eligible. 

Singh also accused the EC of being unaware of the living conditions of the most marginalised people in the country while referring to the ‘logical discrepancy’ clause introduced by the commission. 

“A ridiculous thing was brought up called ‘logical discrepancy’. Gyanesh Kumar does not have any idea of how the poor live in India. Their children are not born in hospitals. They do not have birth certificates. They do not have calendars in their homes. When the BLO approached them to enroll them in the voter list they gave their estimated year of birth. Similarly, when their fathers' names were enrolled in the electoral roll, they gave their estimated year of birth. The dumb people in the Election Commission, under Gyanesh Kumar, said that any difference of less than 15 years between father and children would be a logical discrepancy justifying excluding their names. The ‘Logical Discrepancy’ names were excluded without enquiry, contrary to sec 21 of the Act,” Singh said.

This article was first published at 1:26 PM on September 29 and was updated with new information.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.