New Delhi: Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has criticised Opposition parties for taking to the streets to demand the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. He questioned their commitment to the Constitution and argued that disputes should be addressed through established legal and constitutional mechanisms.
Goyal invoked the words of B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, to defend his position. He cited Ambedkar’s observation that abandoning constitutional methods when they are available amounts to the “grammar of anarchy”.
The minister maintained that the legal system provides avenues for addressing concerns over the voter list revision. He pointed to the Supreme Court’s examination of the issue and said the judicial process concerning Form 6, used for applications to include names in electoral rolls, was already underway. Any required corrections could be directed by the court, he said.
Questioning the Opposition’s decision to organise demonstrations, Goyal asked why its leaders were protesting on the streets if they genuinely respected the Constitution. He accused them of disregarding available constitutional procedures in favour of agitation.
Protests in Delhi began on October 10, with Opposition parties intensifying their campaign against the voter list revision. The controversy has also centred on reported differences within the Election Commission over SIR and Form 6, with concerns allegedly recorded in writing on multiple occasions.
Several Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, were detained during the demonstrations. Thousands of protesters were also taken into custody at various points. Members of the youth group Cockroach Janata Party were reportedly detained by police after arriving in Delhi by air.
Authorities imposed extensive restrictions in parts of the national capital, including road closures, barricades and disruptions to metro services, as the protests continued.
The matter reached the Supreme Court after multiple petitions were filed. The court took note of the developments and made observations concerning the authorities’ handling of the issue.
Sorry, there was a YouTube error.
