The CJP ultimatum, what it wants from the Election Commission

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has given Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar 48 hours to resign, turning the latest dispute within the Election Commission of India (ECI) into a direct demand for institutional intervention. At a press conference in New Delhi on September 24, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke warned that the organisation would launch a nationwide agitation if Kumar did not step down. The announcement came a day after reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally recorded objections to several decisions concerning electoral rolls and the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

But the resignation demand is only the first part of the CJP’s three-point agenda.

What are the three demands?

The first is Kumar’s resignation within 48 hours. The CJP has simultaneously demanded criminal proceedings against the CEC and an explanation of who, according to the organisation, directed the decisions it is challenging. These are demands and allegations made by the CJP, not findings of a court or an established finding of criminal wrongdoing.

The second demand concerns the electoral process itself. The CJP has called for all upcoming elections to be put on hold and for the SIR exercise to be frozen. It has demanded restoration of the electoral roll to its January 2025 position and an independent inquiry into the decision-making behind the SIR. It has also sought custody of all SIR-related files under the Supreme Court or a Supreme Court-led mechanism, arguing that this would prevent records from being destroyed, altered or going missing.

The third demand is a change in the legal framework governing the appointment of Election Commissioners. The CJP wants the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, repealed and replaced with a new law. According to the organisation, the new framework should command public confidence and involve civil society in the appointment process.

Why has the CJP issued the ultimatum now?

The immediate backdrop is the reported dissent within the three-member poll panel. The Indian Express reported that Sandhu and Joshi had objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions involving voter registration, deletion and restoration of names, changes to Form 6 and the management of electoral-roll systems. The CJP has seized on those reported objections to question the functioning of the Commission under Kumar.

Dipke has gone further, alleging that the electoral process is being manipulated and that the administration of electoral rolls is affecting citizens’ voting rights. The CJP has also cited the scale of deletions during SIR in making its case. The frequently cited figure of more than 13 crore, however, refers to names removed from draft rolls across the wider SIR exercise; the number itself does not establish that all those deletions were wrongful.

The ECI has maintained that differences of opinion, written observations and internal checks are normal within a multi-member institution, and that decisions taken by the Commission, including those relating to SIR, were ultimately unanimous.

What happens after 48 hours?

The CJP says the next step will be a nationwide agitation if Kumar does not resign. Dipke has described the proposed mobilisation as 'Jantar Mantar 2.0', signalling an attempt to take the issue beyond the press conference and into street-level protest.

The CJP’s intervention therefore has three distinct layers: a demand for the CEC’s resignation and proceedings against him; a freeze and review of the electoral process and SIR; and a rewrite of the law governing the appointment of Election Commissioners. The 48-hour deadline is the immediate pressure point, but the demands themselves seek changes extending beyond Kumar’s tenure to the administration and legal architecture of the Election Commission.