CJP leader claims ‘traitor’ CEC Gyanesh Kumar delivered Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi elections to BJP, defeated Mamata, Stalin, and Kejriwal through SIR voter deletions: Debunking Abhijeet Dipke’s lies

· OpIndia

A day after The Indian Express published a dubious ‘investigative’ report casting aspersions on the integrity of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, the political opposition and its ideological allies have turned their outrage mode on. In this vein, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders held a press conference in New Delhi on 24th September and demanded the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. However, while declaring the CEC ‘anti-national’, ‘traitor’, and a ‘threat’ to Indian democracy, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke peddled several lies.

SIR and dubious Indian Express report become ammunition for training guns against the CEC Gyanesh Kumar and the BJP: What CJP said

During the press conference, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke attacked CEC Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), voter name deletions, and the Indian Express report on internal dissent in the Election Commission.

Visit turconews.click for more information.

Dipke, joined by CJP spokespersons Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, framed SIR and the claims made in the Indian Express report as some sort of ‘proof of “hijacking of India’s democracy”. The CJP announced an “EC Thik Karo” campaign.

Out of media attention for quite a few weeks, Abhijeet Dipke and his co-cockroaches exploited the moment to play a ‘revolutionary hero’, using strong language, issuing ultimatums and Jantar Mantar-style protest threats, and attempting to flag specific vote-deletion examples linked to the defeats of opposition parties and their leaders.

“To ensure free and fair elections, CEC Gyanesh Kumar must resign. If within 48 hours Gyanesh Kumar doesn’t resign, the Cockroach Janta Party will start a nationwide agitation. We won’t step back till the time Gyanesh Kumar resigns,” Dipke said.

“The Chief Election Commissioner is the biggest anti-national. Gyanesh Kumar is the biggest anti-national of this country. He should resign immediately because he is the biggest threat to India’s democracy,” Dipke added.

The CJP ‘cockroach’ continued, “What did democracy mean in our country? Democracy meant that the people would elect the government. Since Gyanesh Kumar became the Chief Election Commissioner, the government has been deciding who will be allowed to vote and who will not. Is this democracy? What kind of definition of democracy is this? You have turned the entire concept of democracy upside down.”

Abhijeet Dipke claimed that over 13 crore votes have been deleted and accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of deliberately doing so to widen that 2% gap so the BJP never goes out of power.

“In total, more than 13 crore votes have been deleted. This is not a small number. In the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the margin between the opposition and the ruling party (NDA) was just 2%. Deleting 13 crore votes is equivalent to deleting roughly 13% to 14% of the total votes. Is Gyanesh Kumar deleting them intentionally to widen that 2% gap so that they never lose office? Why is this being done? What was the need to delete so many votes?” Dipke claimed.

Dipke further claimed that the supposed mass voter name deletions caused the defeat of Opposition leaders and parties, citing Mamata Banerjee, MK Stalin, Arvind Kejriwal and Pinarayi Vijayan by wide margins.

“The BJP failed to secure a majority in the 2024 election. The panic button was pressed when they fell short of that majority. They had come down to 240 seats after raising the slogan of ‘400 paar’. After that, they realised that the mood of the country was shifting and that regional forces were emerging very strongly,” Dipke claimed.

He further alleged, “In West Bengal, 50,000 votes were deleted from Mamata Banerjee’s constituency, and she lost by around 15,000 votes. In M.K. Stalin’s constituency, 1 lakh votes were deleted, and he lost by around 45,000 votes. In Delhi, 40,000 votes were deleted from Arvind Kejriwal’s constituency, and he lost by around 4,000-5,000 votes.”

Accusing CEC Gyanesh Kumar of ‘rigging’ the various elections, Dipke claimed, “Pinarayi Vijayan would have won, but due to the deletion of votes in Kerala, he did not become the Chief Minister. Was this move designed solely to eliminate strong opposition figures?”

Analysing the factual accuracy of the claims made by CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke

Firstly, the claims that CEC Gyanesh Kumar is the “biggest anti-national” or “traitor” and that “[BJP] government now decides who votes” are political attacks devoid of factual merit. The Election Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324, and its key functions are superintendence, direction, and control of elections, including preparation and revision of electoral rolls.

SIR is not a new and unique instrument that CEC Gyanesh Kumar has introduced to manipulate electoral rolls in favour of a political party. SIR is a long-overdue intensive voter roll cleanup. The last major SIR drive was conducted more than 20 years ago. Not weeding out dead, shifted, duplicate, and other ineligible voter names from electoral rolls would essentially have meant that the ECI was not serious about transparency in the electoral process.

Just because opposition parties and leaders lost elections in some states after SIR does not mean that Gyanesh Kumar personally oversaw the manipulation of electoral rolls to ensure a BJP victory.

Neither the claims by the Indian Express report around the Form 6 modifications issue nor the claims about alleged “centralisation” of electoral roll databases are backed by enough evidence to support the ‘Delhi has taken over the voter database’ accusations.

Speaking to OpIndia recently, several Electoral Registration Officers categorically rejected the suggestion that their statutory powers had been usurped by the ECI’s central administration.

13 crore ‘voter deletions’ do not automatically mean eligible voters were stripped of their voting rights illegally

Moving ahead, Abhijeet Dipke claimed that over 13 crore voter deletions, amounting to 13-14%, have been carried out under the watch of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. These numbers are aligned with the 13.8 crore voter deletions claim Congress made earlier. Congress claims that around 13.8 crore names have been removed across 31 states/UTs, 14.6% of a pre-SIR base of around 94.7 crore. Phase 2 (12 states/UTs) witnessed a net reduction of 5.18 crore (10.2%, from 50.99 crore to 45.81 crore), and higher gross deletions offset by additions. The Phase 3 draft rolls indicated over 6 crore deletions from 36 crore names in these states/UTs.

The deleted voters, however, were not singled out based on their caste, religion, gender or political leanings. The deleted voters included deceased, shifted/absent, and duplicates. The SIR has provisions for restoration of draft deletions through claims and objections or tribunals. In fact, the distinction between draft deletion and final exclusion after the prescribed process is not a minor technicality but central to the objective of conducting SIR.

While 13 crores in itself is not a small number, the sheer size of the ‘deleted’ number of names does not automatically mean eligible voters were illegally disenfranchised en masse, as the CJP, the Congress party and its media allies are insinuating.

Did SIR lead to Mamata Banerjee, MK Stalin and Arvind Kejriwal’s election defeats?

Abhijeet Dipke claimed that Trinamool Congress supremo lost the Bhabanipur election to BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari in 2026 after SIR ‘deleted’ around 47,000 voter names. These claims are not new. The Wire and the leftist coterie have for months been claiming that SIR helped the BJP win West Bengal. However, the anti-BJP ecosystem conveniently forgets that correlation is not causation.

What is the proof that all the deleted names were genuine voters? What is the proof that those deleted names would have surely voted for the TMC? IF defeat is the proof that SIR helped the BJP win over the TMC, then Dipke and the whole anti-ECI cabal need to look at the complete picture instead of cherry-picking numbers that suit their narrative.

In the 20 Assembly seats that recorded the highest voter deletions, TMC won 13, BJP won 6, and one seat was won by Congress. If the SIR or voter deletions were systematically designed to damage the TMC and benefit the BJP, then how did TMC dominate the highest-deletion constituencies? Clearly, data debunks ‘ECI did partisan engineering’ claims.

Electoral outcomes vary because of local candidate strength, caste and communal equations, anti-incumbency, organisational machinery, turnout behaviour, and regional political trends. Blaming SIR as the sole driver of the defeat of anti-BJP leaders or political parties is nothing but political rhetoric.

In the case of DMK leader M.K. Stalin, who lost the Kolathur seat to TVK leader V.S. Babu, Abhijeet Dipke blatantly lied about the defeat margin. Contrary to his claim that Stalin lost by 45,000 votes, the former Tamil Nadu CM lost by a margin of just 8,795 votes. The CJP leader inflated the margin to add, perhaps, a dramatic effect to his alarmist propaganda.

Notably, Tamil Nadu saw around 74 lakh voter names deleted following the SIR exercise. If the BJP actually had CEC Gyanesh Kumar as its stooge, wouldn’t CEC Kumar have ensured at least ten seats for the BJP in Tamil Nadu, if not securing it a number significant enough to make BJP a kingmaker?

In Delhi, AAP supremo and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal lost to BJP’s Pravesh Verma by a thin margin of 4000 votes. In this case, the numbers hold; however, Abhijeet Dipke did not reveal what evidence he has that suggests that the around 37, 315 voter names deleted in SIR in Delhi were first identified based on their religion or political preferences, and then ‘disenfranchised’.

In India, elections are like recurring festivals; every year in some or the other part of the country, elections at different levels take place. SIR, though already delayed, whenever conducted, would have occurred before and after some elections. Mere timing of the exercise cannot be used to frame a conspiratorial narrative that the whole SIR process was exploited to delete voters from electoral rolls.

Abhijeet Dipke claims that BJP won in Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi after Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner; facts indicate otherwise

During the press conference on Thursday, CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke also claimed that the BJP’s vote share in Haryana, Maharashtra, and Delhi increased sharply after Gyanesh Kumar assumed office as the CEC.

He said that after Gyanesh Kumar became Chief Election Commissioner, the BJP’s vote share rose in Haryana from 36% to 40%, Maharashtra from 25% to 27%, and Delhi from 38% to 45% and called Kumar the BJP’s “real hero”.

While these vote-share figures are roughly in the right range, there is a major problem in linking these increases to Gyanesh Kumar becoming CEC. This is because Gyanesh Kumar assumed charge as the 26th Chief Election Commissioner of India on 19th February 2025, while Haryana elections and result announcement took place in October 2024, Maharashtra polling and result announcement occurred in November 2024, and Delhi elections took place on 5th February, and results were declared on 8th February 2025.

The timeline itself debunks Dipke’s lies against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. He should explain how Kumar ‘delivered’ victories to the BJP in elections that were already concluded before he even took charge as the CEC.

Gyanesh Kumar took charge as the Election Commissioner on 15th March 2024, and constitutionally, even if two ECs and 1 CEC have the same power, final decisions are taken with consensus. There is no proof that Gyanesh Kumar, as EC, dictated terms to the previous CEC, Rajiv Kumar and the other Election Commissioner.

Even after becoming the CEC, Gyanesh Kumar does not enjoy absolute and unquestioned power without accountability.

Despite being head of the ECI, the CEC cannot overrule the other Election Commissioners. If the commissioners disagree, the final choice is decided by a majority vote.

In fact, the internal discussions and dissenting note exchanges by the CEC and the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, indicate that the Commission’s top officials freely and strongly express their opinions and disagreements about various issues pertaining to the electoral process and take decisions after thorough consensus, contrary to the framing that CEC Gyanesh Kumar alone holds the reins of the Election Commission.

Opposition’s EVM hacking, VVPAT tampering, and Rahul Gandhi’s ‘vote chori’ bogey could not sow distrust in the minds of the Indian people against the Election Commission, its integrity and the transparency of the electoral process. Thus, the anti-BJP cabal has chosen CEC Gyanesh Kumar as their scapegoat.

This is probably because calling the whole Election Commission corrupt made little sense, but painting a single person, a top official, as corrupt or compromised is feasible and emotionally appealing. However, facts always triumph over sensationalism. Demanding accountability does not mean that CJP, or any political party, gets the right to character assassinate an public servant or declare his ‘traitor’.

Read full story at source