The Kerala assembly voted on Monday to adopt a resolution seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and calling for action on reported irregularities in the special intensive revision of electoral rolls. Three BJP legislators voted against the measure.

The resolution, tabled by V D Satheesan under Rule 118, placed the Election Commission's management of the Special Intensive Revision process under scrutiny. Satheesan, the opposition leader, argued that the manner in which the exercise had been conducted left unanswered questions about electoral transparency and the constitutional entitlements of voters who qualify for inclusion on the rolls.

A floor vote on the resolution followed after an amendment put forward by Pinarayi Vijayan — substituting the phrase "lakhs of voters" with "crores of voters" — was accepted.

Among its provisions, the resolution called for correcting identified problems in the SIR process, reinstating the electoral eligibility of citizens whose names had been improperly removed from voter rolls, and pursuing accountability proceedings against Kumar over disputes tied to the SIR.

Delivering his remarks, Satheesan put forward the position that elections are required to be free, fair, and transparent to uphold democratic principles. He noted that complaints had been raised that voters were dropped from electoral rolls through the SIR process without prior notification being given to those affected.

Satheesan argued that barring qualified voters from casting ballots ran contrary to democratic norms, and that the Election Commission bore an obligation to protect every eligible person's access to the ballot. According to the resolution, the EC did not take adequate steps to maintain transparency in how the SIR software was operated.

Satheesan further argued that the EC, as a body established under the constitution, is expected to operate with transparency and without outside interference. He contended that stripping citizens of their right to vote would run counter to constitutional protections, and that flaws in voter registration records risk undermining the legitimacy of an electoral mandate.

The resolution also raised questions about the legal and administrative framework underpinning the revision process, including the scope of authority held by electoral registration officers and the protections available to voters whose names had been left off the rolls.

The resolution called for identified shortcomings to be addressed and for the voting entitlements of qualifying citizens to be reinstated. It contended that, as structured, the exercise had given rise to doubts over whether the electoral process could be conducted fairly and whether voters who met eligibility requirements might be excluded without sufficient protections in place.

A motion was also put forward calling for disciplinary proceedings against Kumar and fellow election commissioners over purported failures in their official duties. The resolution framed remedial steps as necessary to rebuilding trust in the electoral process and addressing the grievances raised about the EC's conduct.