Ex-Home Secretary R.K. Singh accuses CEC Gyanesh Kumar of ‘illegalities’ in SIR

Former Union Home Secretary R.K. Singh has levelled serious allegations against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, claiming “illegalities” in the conduct of an exercise referred to as SIR. Singh linked his charge to provisions under the Representation of the People (RP) Act and flagged what he called a “logical discrepancy” tied to the processing of key electoral roll forms, warning that the alleged lapses could disenfranchise vulnerable voters. He also set out a series of demands for immediate corrective action.

Background

R.K. Singh, a retired Indian Administrative Service officer who served as Union Home Secretary and later as a Union Minister, has focused his criticism on processes related to voter registration and deletion. His allegations centre on compliance with the RP Act, the legal framework that underpins elections in India, and on the handling of applications and objections that form the basis of additions to and deletions from the electoral rolls. Gyanesh Kumar, a career civil servant, currently heads the Election Commission of India (ECI) as the Chief Election Commissioner.

Allegations under the RP Act

Singh has asserted that actions undertaken during the SIR violated the letter and spirit of the RP Act and associated rules governing the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls. Though he did not make public a detailed enumeration of alleged violations, he framed the issue as a matter of statutory compliance, arguing that any departure from due process in managing the rolls—whether in admitting fresh applications or in deleting existing entries—would constitute an illegality with direct implications for citizens’ voting rights.

His criticism, as outlined, appears to encompass both procedural safeguards and the transparency requirements the law mandates, including notice and verification processes before any name is struck off the rolls, and the proper scrutiny of inclusion requests. By tying his claims to the RP Act, Singh has sought to underscore that the concerns he raised relate not merely to administrative lapses but to potential breaches of election law.

Forms 6 and 7: the crux of the dispute

At the heart of Singh’s objections is the way authorities handled Form 6 and Form 7—two statutory forms central to how electoral rolls are updated:

• Form 6 is used by eligible citizens to apply for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll.
• Form 7 is used to object to a name on the roll or to request deletion, typically when a person is no longer eligible at a particular address due to reasons such as death or migration.

Singh alleged that a “logical discrepancy” emerged in the handling of these forms during SIR. While he did not publicly share specific datasets alongside his charge, the phrase suggests he identified a mismatch or inconsistency in how additions and deletions were processed, recorded, or justified. Such discrepancies can occur, for example, when deletions outpace verifiable grounds or when inclusion requests are not handled with the same procedural care as objections and deletions—issues that, if proven, would raise questions about the integrity of the resulting rolls.

Impact on the poor

Underscoring the human cost of administrative lapses, Singh warned that errors in roll management tend to disproportionately affect the poor and other vulnerable groups. These communities—often comprising migrant workers, informal-sector labourers, and those with limited access to documentation—can be the first to suffer from inadvertent deletions, bureaucratic hurdles in re-enrolment, or inconsistent application of rules. According to Singh, this risk is especially acute when large-scale revision exercises are not accompanied by rigorous verification, adequate notice, and accessible grievance redress.

Demands and the way forward

In response to the alleged irregularities, Singh set out a set of demands aimed at restoring confidence in the process. He called for immediate corrective measures to align procedures with the RP Act and the rules governing electoral roll maintenance. These include:

• Ensuring that all additions and deletions are backed by due process, including notice, verification, and the opportunity to be heard where required by law.
• Full transparency around the criteria and workflows used to process Form 6 and Form 7, particularly in the SIR context.
• Rectification of discrepancies flagged in the handling of forms and the publication of clear, auditable data trails that show how decisions were reached.
• Safeguards to protect vulnerable voters from wrongful deletion and to streamline legitimate re-enrolment.

While Singh’s allegations hinge on procedural fidelity and statutory compliance, they also speak to wider public concerns about the accuracy and inclusivity of India’s electoral rolls. The credibility of any revision exercise rests on robust checks, clear communication with electors, and quick remedies for wrongful exclusions. Singh’s intervention, therefore, places renewed attention on how the ECI and its field machinery document, verify, and justify every addition and deletion.

Conclusion

By accusing CEC Gyanesh Kumar of “illegalities” in SIR and grounding his objections in the RP Act, former Home Secretary R.K. Singh has put the spotlight on the mechanics of electoral roll maintenance at a time when procedural integrity is central to public trust. His focus on Forms 6 and 7 and the warning about disproportionate harm to poorer voters sharpen the call for transparency and due process. The coming days will likely determine whether the concerns he has raised translate into administrative review, data disclosure, or policy adjustments to strengthen the fairness and reliability of voter registration practices.