05 October,2026 11:17 AM IST | New Delhi | mid-day online correspondent
Jairam Ramesh. File Pic
The Congress on Monday demanded the immediate resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh alleging that Kumar's ability to "execute G2's illegal orders" had made him a "liability for the country".
Ramesh's remarks came a day after Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, speaking at an event at NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, warned that any process resulting in the mass disenfranchisement of Indian citizens would be "intrinsically arbitrary" and a negation of the constitutional order.
The judge's comments were made amid an ongoing political and legal controversy over the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. While the Congress has sought to link Bhuyan's remarks directly to its criticism of Kumar and the SIR exercise, the judge was speaking in a public address and did not issue a judicial order or ruling against the Chief Election Commissioner.
Sharing a video clip of Justice Bhuyan's remarks on X, Ramesh accused the CEC of acting in a manner that, according to the Congress, undermined constitutional safeguards.
"Here is the bold Justice Ujjal Bhuyan speaking yesterday in NALSAR University in Hyderabad, where he exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. If he has any sense of shame, Gyanesh Kumar must quit right away," Ramesh said.
"His (Kumar's) ability to execute G2's illegal orders have now made him a liability for the country," he added.
Ramesh frequently uses the term "G2" to refer to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah. His allegation that the CEC is executing "illegal orders" is a political claim by the Congress and has not been established by a court.
Justice Bhuyan, who delivered the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, spoke about the constitutional significance of the right to vote.
He said the Constitution does not create two classes of citizens - those with voting rights and those without them. He further said any process that results in the wholesale disenfranchisement of millions of citizens, effectively leaving them as citizens without voting rights, would violate Articles 14 and 326 of the Constitution.
"If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens, making them second-class citizens in their own country in the sense of being citizens without a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it," he said.
"It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution, and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the Constitutional order which we have adopted based on the Constitution of India," he said.
Bhuyan also stressed that no authority is above the Constitution and linked the right to vote with India's democratic system and the constitutional framework governing elections.
The Congress has seized on the remarks to intensify its attack on the Election Commission and Kumar.
On Sunday, Ramesh had said Bhuyan's comments "conclusively prove" that the CEC had violated the Constitution "both in letter and spirit". He also claimed that Kumar had lost the moral right to remain in office.
"Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of environmental protection," Ramesh said in his earlier statement.
"Now the courageous jurist has forcefully expressed his view that the right to vote is very much part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This conclusively proves that the CEC -- constitutional functionary himself -- has violated the Constitution itself both in letter and spirit," he said.
"Justice Bhuyan has said much more and has exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. Gyanesh Kumar has simply lost all moral right to continue in office," Ramesh had asserted.
However, Justice Bhuyan's remarks were made during a public speech and do not amount to a Supreme Court judgment holding that Kumar or the Election Commission violated the Constitution. The distinction is significant as the Supreme Court is separately dealing with petitions challenging aspects of the functioning of the Election Commission and the SIR exercise.
(With inputs from PTI)
