Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has questioned the Opposition’s criticism of the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing that its allegations should be examined against the timeline of key electoral events. His remarks have intensified the political dispute over Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Fadnavis made the comments amid mounting opposition criticism of the poll panel and a protest in Mumbai involving Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray. The dispute centres on the Election Commission’s functioning and concerns about the process of reviewing voter lists.
Fadnavis Cites Election Dates in His Defence
Speaking to reporters in Nagpur on October 5, Fadnavis highlighted three separate dates to challenge the Opposition’s accusations. Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner in 2025, Maharashtra held its Assembly elections in 2024, and the SIR exercise under discussion began in 2026.
The chief minister argued that the chronology made it difficult to link the current election chief or the later voter-list revision exercise to the Maharashtra Assembly election held the previous year.
He also criticised the Opposition’s political strategy, suggesting that its attacks on the poll body reflected frustration following repeated electoral defeats. Fadnavis questioned the turnout at the Mumbai protest, saying the demonstration had attracted fewer participants than its publicity might have suggested.
His comments turned the spotlight back on the disagreement between the ruling BJP and opposition parties over the credibility of the electoral process.
Why the Election Commission Is Facing Opposition Pressure
The controversy surrounding Gyanesh Kumar has grown following questions about the SIR process and reports of internal objections within the Election Commission.
The revision exercise involves reviewing electoral rolls, making the management of voter registrations and deletions a central issue in the political debate. Opposition parties have expressed concern that the process could lead to eligible voters losing their place on the electoral rolls. They have demanded greater accountability from the poll panel and questioned the circumstances surrounding its decisions.
During the Mumbai march, Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray called for Kumar’s removal. Their demand followed a report alleging that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections to aspects of the Commission’s decisions on several occasions over a period of 10 months.
The reported objections have added another dimension to the dispute, with opposition leaders citing them as grounds for questioning the Commission’s internal decision-making.
Opposition Leaders Join Mumbai Protest
The demonstration brought together representatives from several parties opposed to the BJP. Congress leaders Balasaheb Thorat and Vijay Wadettiwar participated, alongside leaders associated with the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), including Jayant Patil, Shashikant Shinde, Jitendra Awhad and Anil Deshmukh.
The participation of leaders from different opposition groups highlighted the broader political significance of the Election Commission dispute in Maharashtra.
While Fadnavis has focused on the chronology of appointments and elections to challenge the Opposition’s allegations, opposition leaders have emphasised their concerns about electoral transparency and the treatment of voter registrations.
The competing positions have kept the Election Commission at the centre of a wider political confrontation. The debate is likely to continue as parties press for explanations over the SIR process and the reported internal objections, while the ruling BJP maintains that the Opposition’s accusations lack a sound basis.
