The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on Thursday demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar for “undermining” voter rights and warned of a nationwide agitation, including “Jantar Mantar 2.0”, if he does not step down within 48 hours. The CJP also made three demands.“If Gyanesh Kumar does not resign within 48 hours, we will start a nationwide protest before coming for a protest in Delhi,” CJP national convener Abhijeet Dipke said at a press conference here, flanked by co-conveners Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka. If the CEC doesn’t resign, “Jantar Mantar 2.0 will definitely happen”, he said. The CJP’s protest against the NEET exam paper leak, which led to Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as Union Education Minister on July 25, was held at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.AdvertisementExpress Investigation | 14 times in 10 months, two Election Commissioners objected on record to poll panel stepsThe CJP has metamorphosed from an online platform to a pressure group and is now seeking to build on its Jantar Mantar success by launching a campaign seeking administrative accountability on the state of primary schools and healthcare facilities in villages and towns across the country. Facing pushback on the ground during these visits to schools and healthcare facilities, the EC campaign provides the CJP with another high-profile issue that can help it remain a part of the national conversation. Explaining the CJP’s rationale, Saurav Das has said in a video that any attempt to seek accountability from the government and change will not work if questions hang over the electoral system itself.This comes after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times in 10 months to SIR-related decisions taken without their knowledge and glaring gaps in processes.Responding to the Express investigation on Wednesday, the EC acknowledged these notes but described them as part of the panel’s “decision-making process”. However, it neither responded to any of the concerns raised by the two Commissioners nor stated whether or how it addressed them. “Differing views and observations are a normal part of deliberation in any institution,” the Commission said in a press note signed by Deputy Director P Pawan. “They are a part of the decision-making process before a final decision is taken.” The “written notes, observations, technical suggestions and internal checks-and-balances” by its members, it said, were “standard, ongoing practices”, and “the suggestions given by the Commissioners were for further improving the electoral processes”.AdvertisementThe CJP also announced that its “Election Commission Thik Karo” (Fix the Election Commission) campaign would focus on the exclusion of more than 13 crore names from draft electoral rolls in 30 states and Union Territories during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.Also Read | ‘Illegal, unauthorised’: Election Commissioners objected to Form 6 change“Democracy means that people choose their government. This is not democracy, this is autocracy. Under Gyanesh Kumar, we are seeing an electoral system in which the Election Commission is deciding who remains on the voter rolls and who does not. When millions of names can disappear from draft rolls, the burden is on the Commission to establish that every exclusion is lawful, transparent, and subject to meaningful review,” Dipke said.“Two of the three Election Commissioners formally objected to decisions being taken without their knowledge or approval. The Election Commission must publicly explain how these objections were dealt with and who authorised the decisions in question,” he said.Call for scrutinySaurav Das said three areas require immediate scrutiny.First, the alleged blocking of first-time voters after the EC introduced an additional declaration in the online Form 6 process requiring new applicants to provide information about their own or their parents’ presence in previous SIR rolls.Second, the handling of the appeals of excluded voters in West Bengal. The CJP leader demanded transparency in the EC’s handling of SIR-related cases, including appeals of excluded voters and the Commission’s legal steps in the matter.Third, the centralisation of electoral roll data. “The Election Commission cannot ask citizens to trust a system while refusing to explain how major changes to voter registration, deletion and data access are being authorised. Every decision affecting a citizen’s right to vote must have a clear legal basis, an identifiable decision-maker and a transparent record,” Das said.Ranka said the consequences of excluding genuine voters could extend beyond elections to instances where voter records are used for administrative verification. He demanded an answer from the poll panel on who authorised the removal of citizens from electoral rolls without first ensuring a “transparent and accessible remedy”.“The right to vote is a constitutional right protected through the electoral framework under Article 326. The Commission must answer to the citizens whose names have been excluded,” Ranka said.CJP’s demandsApart from demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, the CJP called for an independent investigation into decisions taken during the SIR, including identifying officials who authorised the disputed changes and directives.you may likeThe outfit also asked for SIR-related exclusions to be halted and demanded that the January 2025 electoral rolls be secured and all relevant SIR records and files be transferred to the Supreme Court or an independent judicially supervised inquiry.Also Read | Explained: From birth to ban, all that has happened with the Cockroach Janta Party so farUnderlining the need for reform in the appointment framework of the Election Commissioners, the CJP demanded the repeal of the 2023 law governing the appointment of the CEC and other Commissioners and replacing it with a framework involving wider institutional and civil-society participation.The CJP urged Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi to publicly clarify their recorded objections and asked for the poll panel to publish the relevant objection notes and responses. The EC should also make public the underlying records so that the competing claims can be independently examined, the outfit said.