INDIA bloc's Chalo Dilli rally: the CEC fight, the six charges, and what removal would actually take

What happened at Ramlila Maidan on 1 November

The opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, known as the INDIA bloc, held its 'Chalo Dilli' march and 'Vote Bachao, Desh Bachao' rally in New Delhi on Sunday, 1 November 2026, to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Senior leaders including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, Mamata Banerjee, Akhilesh Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav travelled in an open bus from Kharge's residence to Minto Road and then marched to Ramlila Maidan, where supporters and party workers had gathered from the morning. Delhi Police imposed traffic restrictions and diversions across central Delhi from 10 am to 5 pm around ITO, Delhi Gate, Rajghat, Ajmeri Gate and Turkman Gate.

Addressing the rally, Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of 'stealing votes' and said legal action would follow, while warning that Kumar would be removed as CEC and would face jail for what he called treason. He also repeated the bloc's allegation that the BJP had manipulated voting in Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Karnataka as well as in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, and claimed that 15 per cent of India's voters had been removed from the rolls after 2024, which he said made that election 'illegal' and 'stolen'. These are the opposition's allegations; they are not findings by any court or by the Election Commission, and the BJP and the Commission reject them.

Other leaders used the stage to press state-specific grievances. Mamata Banerjee said Bengal was a victim of the SIR and vowed her party would fight but not surrender. Akhilesh Yadav alleged voter-list manipulation in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections and said affidavits submitted by the bloc about voters unable to vote had drawn no action. Kharge said the bloc would not be intimidated by the police, the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate or other agencies, and called for support to remove the Modi government in order to save democracy. Former Keralam chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan demanded Kumar's resignation, an end to alleged voter deletions, transparent elections and the restoration of ballot papers.

The size of the crowd itself became a point of dispute. The Congress described a massive or record turnout, while BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said around 40 per cent of Ramlila Maidan was vacant and that of 28,000 chairs, around 5,000 to 7,000 were empty at 3:30 to 4 pm, disputing the Congress's claim of 10 lakh attendees. No independent crowd figure has been established, so neither side's number should be treated as settled. After the rally, central Delhi roads and walls carried spray-painted slogans including 'Vote chor, gaddi chor', 'Rollback SIR' and 'Illegal PM', and a Delhi traders' body estimated losses of over Rs 10,000 crore from the day's disruption, a figure that is the traders' body's own estimate, not an official assessment.

The day before: a symbolic 'public impeachment'

The rally was the second act of a two-day escalation. On Saturday, 31 October, the INDIA bloc held a symbolic 'public impeachment' of Kumar at the lawns of Kharge's residence at 10, Rajaji Marg in New Delhi, an event originally scheduled for Friday that was postponed by a day because of rain. Former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar presided, sitting in a chair described in reports as 'Nehru's chair', on a stage designed to resemble the old Lok Sabha chamber, with seats arranged in a semi-circle. Samajwadi Party MP Awadhesh Kumar and Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy were named deputy presiding officers, and the proceedings began with the national anthem.

Kharge moved a resolution seeking Kumar's removal, seconded by Samajwadi Party MP Harendra Malik, and it was adopted unanimously by a show of hands, with Meira Kumar declaring 'Prastav parit hua', meaning the resolution has been passed. Representatives of at least 18 parties attended, along with Independent Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, civil society members and people who said their names had been wrongly deleted from the rolls. Rahul Gandhi, in his closing speech, called the gathering an 'extremely dangerous political weapon' aimed at everyone from Kumar to Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, and said Kumar was the bloc's 'first target' because, in his words, Modi and Shah were on top but Kumar was their instrument.

It is important to be clear about what this event was and was not. It was a political and symbolic exercise organised by the opposition itself. It was not a parliamentary proceeding, it had no legal force, and it did not remove Kumar from office. The bloc itself framed it as a response to what it says is the closure of institutional avenues, with Rahul Gandhi saying the opposition had 'nowhere else to go' because every institutional direction, including Parliament, the judiciary and the Election Commission, was closed to it. The demand that Kumar be tried for treason is likewise a political demand in a resolution, not a court verdict, and no court has found Kumar guilty of treason or of any of the six charges.

The six charges, one by one

The resolution listed six charges against Kumar. The first alleged that he had overseen and participated in a 'devious and malevolent criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the BJP to steal national and state elections', and that he had 'willingly broken the rule of law by allowing them to access voter rolls, to delete and add voters at will and manipulate the outcome of the elections'. The resolution called this a criminal act and an act of treason against the nation and the Constitution. This is the bloc's language and allegation, not an established fact.

The second charge accused Kumar of being directly responsible for what the opposition called a manipulated and destructive SIR exercise, which it alleged had resulted in the intentional deletion of 13.2 crore voters, depriving them of their constitutional right to vote, carried out in a partisan and opaque manner in violation of the principles of natural justice. The third charge concerned alleged changes to Form 6 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which the bloc said Kumar amended without parliamentary oversight or knowledge, claiming the changes were intended to prevent the enrolment of first-time voters. The Election Commission has separately rejected the claim that Form 6 was amended.

The fourth charge accused Kumar of centralising control over electoral rolls through the ERONET and ECINET software, alleging the system was used to delete voters and prevent local Electoral Registration Officers from adding legitimate names. The fifth charge alleged that Kumar excluded the other two Election Commissioners from decision-making, claiming he acted with seven associates in the Commission while keeping the two commissioners out, and that the two commissioners had placed no fewer than 14 objections on record. The sixth charge accused him of breaching his constitutional responsibility to function independently, denying the opposition a fair hearing and acting at the behest of Modi and Shah. The resolution also alleged that members of Kumar's family had received benefits, including plum postings and unprecedented opportunities for remuneration, in return for what it called his shameful compliance with the BJP. None of these allegations has been upheld by a court.

The numbers fight: 13.2 crore, 13.3 crore, and 13.39 crore

The most confusing part of this dispute is the arithmetic, because similar-looking numbers mean different things depending on who is using them. The impeachment resolution's figure is 13.2 crore voters allegedly deleted through the SIR. Rahul Gandhi, in his own speech at the symbolic proceedings, put the figure higher, claiming 13.3 crore voters, or 15 per cent of India's electorate, had been deleted. At the rally he again claimed that 15 per cent of voters had been removed after the 2024 elections. These are the opposition's figures, and they are presented as deletions of eligible voters.

The Election Commission's figure is close in size but different in meaning. The Commission says it categorised 13.39 crore electors across the three phases of the revision as absent, shifted, deceased or duplicate. The breakdown it has given is 6.30 crore marked as permanently shifted, 3.01 crore as absent or untraceable, 2.80 crore as deceased and 1.02 crore as duplicate entries. The Commission's position is that these are entries flagged during the exercise and should not be interpreted as 13.39 crore eligible voters definitively removed from the final rolls, and that eligible voters left out can seek inclusion through the prescribed claims-and-objections process. Reuters has separately reported that more than 130 million names were removed from voter lists in the revision. The gap between 'flagged' and 'wrongly deleted eligible voter' is the heart of the factual dispute, and it cannot be settled by comparing headline numbers alone.

The opposition has also tried to put human faces to the numbers. At the symbolic proceedings, two voters recounted deletions despite holding documents: Iftikhar Ahmad of Kolkata's Chowringhee constituency said he had voted there for 20 years but was removed from the draft rolls, and Anita Jaiswal, who said she had voted in every election from 2012 to 2025, asked why her voter ID had been deleted. CPI(M) MP John Brittas said he had himself undergone two hearings to establish his eligibility as a voter. Congress speakers alleged that minority communities were disproportionately affected, with one minority department leader alleging that Muslims, Christians and Sikhs had been removed, including some recorded as deceased while still alive, and another speaker claiming the Congress had submitted evidence about a mobile application and an OTP-based system plus 34 reports of software malfunctions that were not investigated. The Commission, for its part, says flagged entries were verified, has ordered a review of voter-roll software, and rejects claims of political bias. Individual cases and aggregate statistics are different kinds of evidence, and neither side's account has been tested in a final court ruling.

The BJP's counter-attack

The BJP's response combined mockery of the rally, a challenge to the opposition's timeline, and an accusation that the protest was designed to create unrest. Sambit Patra, the party's national spokesperson, called the rally a failure and a 'spectacle of chaos', disputed the 10 lakh attendance claim with his chairs-and-vacancy figures, and made a pointed chronological argument: Kumar was not even CEC during the 2024 elections, having become CEC only in 2025, so, in Patra's words, if the 2024 election was illegal then Rahul Gandhi himself would be an illegal Leader of the Opposition. Patra asked why the bloc had not challenged the 2024 result in court over the past two years, saying an election cannot be declared illegal two and a half years later at Ramlila Maidan.

Other BJP leaders went further. Union minister JP Nadda called the rally 'foolish drama' that would be the final nail in the coffin of the Congress's political future, and accused Rahul Gandhi of plotting anarchy and trying to destabilise an elected government, while invoking the 1984 anti-Sikh riots against the Congress. Home Minister Amit Shah said Delhi traders had repeatedly urged the Congress to postpone the rally until after Diwali because of festival-season business. Union minister Pralhad Joshi mocked Rahul Gandhi's 'mock PM' ambitions and accused the Congress of questioning constitutional institutions after electoral defeats, citing its victories in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand. Maharashtra deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde called the rally a 'fake narrative' defaming the Prime Minister, the Janata Dal (United) questioned an alliance that unites at rallies but contests elections against each other, and Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora said the bloc should ensure internal democracy before claiming to defend the country's democracy.

The Election Commission's own institutional response has been consistent across this dispute: it denies political bias, maintains that the SIR is an electoral-roll verification exercise, says its three SIR orders, issued in June 2025, October 2025 and May 2026, were unanimous decisions of the three-member Commission, and says observations or queries raised by individual commissioners during file processing did not amount to formal Commission decisions. It has also said voters wrongly deleted can apply for re-enrolment. The Commission's earlier press-conference position, given by Kumar flanked by Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, was that 'vote chori' allegations insult the Constitution, that the Commission treats ruling party and opposition equally, and that allegations of double voting produced no proof when proof was sought. Those are the Commission's stated positions, and they are contested by the opposition, not agreed facts.

What removing a CEC would actually take

Whatever the politics, the constitutional bar for removing a Chief Election Commissioner is deliberately very high, and understanding it explains why the bloc's two-day action was symbolic rather than legal. Under Article 324(5) of the Constitution, the CEC cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. The only two grounds are 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity', and mere allegations, however serious or numerous, cannot by themselves trigger removal. The same protection is restated in Section 11 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The other Election Commissioners are on a different footing: they can be removed by the President, but only on the CEC's recommendation.

The procedure, drawn from Article 124 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, has several stages. A notice of motion must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha, and then admitted by the presiding officer, who exercises discretion at this gatekeeping stage. If admitted, a three-member committee comprising a sitting Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist investigates whether misbehaviour or incapacity stands proved. Only if the charges are held proved must the motion be passed by both Houses separately, each by a special majority: a majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. Only then does the motion go to the President for the CEC's actual removal. The Constitution technically reserves the word 'impeachment' for the President, so 'removal' is the correct term for a CEC, even though 'public impeachment' is the phrase the bloc used.

This is not a hypothetical obstacle. Opposition MPs submitted notices signed by 193 members in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in March 2026 seeking Kumar's removal over alleged bias in the SIR, particularly in West Bengal, and both notices were rejected by the Speaker and the Chairman in early April 2026 at the admission stage, with the presiding officers citing their powers under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. A fresh removal effort was reported in September 2026 following allegations about the SIR. At the symbolic proceedings, Meira Kumar said the bloc had decided to move a motion seeking the CEC's removal, to be moved in the Rajya Sabha by Kharge. Any such motion would still have to clear admission, inquiry and the double special majority, which is why the bloc's street and symbolic campaign and its parliamentary and court options are running in parallel rather than as substitutes for each other.

What happens next: the court date and the campaign

The most concrete next date in this dispute is in court, not on the street. The Supreme Court is seized of petitions challenging the Commission's functioning and alleging unilateral decision-making by Kumar. The Commission has filed an affidavit saying all three SIR orders were unanimously approved by Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and rejecting the Form 6 amendment claim. On 27 October, the court gave petitioners 10 days to respond to the affidavit and deferred the matter, with the next hearing scheduled for 17 November. Until the court examines the competing claims, allegations of unilateral decision-making or systematic exclusion of eligible voters should not be presented as established facts, and the court has not yet ruled on them.

Politically, the bloc has signalled that the campaign will continue. Rahul Gandhi's message at both events was that Kumar would not survive as CEC, that the opposition had enough proof, and that retaining Kumar would expose what he called the BJP's game. Kharge's message was that the bloc would not be intimidated by central agencies. The BJP's message was that the rally was a failed spectacle, that the opposition is questioning institutions after losing elections, and that its claims should be tested in court rather than declared at rallies. The two sides are therefore fighting over three different arenas at once: public opinion, Parliament, and the courts, and progress in one does not decide the others.

For readers trying to follow this story, four things are worth watching. First, the 17 November Supreme Court hearing and whether the court tests the unanimity claim and the deletion figures. Second, whether a formal parliamentary removal motion is actually moved and admitted, given the April 2026 rejection. Third, the claims-and-objections process: how many flagged voters are restored to the final rolls, which is the practical test of whether flagged entries become wrongful deletions. And fourth, whether the SIR dispute affects upcoming state contests, since the opposition has tied it to elections in West Bengal and other states, while the Commission insists the exercise is routine verification. The rally answered none of these questions by itself, but it made clear that the confrontation over the voter lists is now the opposition's central campaign.

Editorial disclosure

This article was researched with AI assistance and reviewed by the publisher before publication. Report factual errors through our contact page.