Gaurav Gogoi hits back at BJP MP’s Padma Bhushan praise for CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Assam Congress president Gaurav Gogoi has criticised BJP Rajya Sabha MP Samik Bhattacharya’s remarks praising Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar for a Padma Bhushan, alleging that the Election Commission’s functioning under Kumar has raised questions about the integrity of the electoral process.

Speaking in Nagaon, Gogoi said Bhattacharya’s suggestion that Kumar deserved the Padma Bhushan was indicative of the BJP’s support for the Chief Election Commissioner.

“Padma Bhushan? The BJP will make him the President,” Gogoi said, adding that while BJP leaders had backed Kumar, questions had also been raised by officials within the Election Commission about his functioning.

Gogoi alleged that an “IT cell” had emerged within the office of the Chief Election Commissioner and claimed that decisions relating to the inclusion of new voters in electoral rolls were being influenced by it.

“Now, Gyanesh Kumar's IT cell will determine whether or not a new 18-year-old voter gets included in the electoral roll,” he said.

Referring to allegations surrounding electoral rolls, Gogoi said the Congress was concerned about what he described as an attempt to exercise control over voter lists.

“We used to hear about booth capturing or the seizure of ballot boxes; now, the BJP wants to capture the entire voter list itself,” he alleged.

Gogoi also said the Congress was demanding Kumar’s resignation and referred to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s call for the Chief Election Commissioner to “turn approver”.

“Gyanesh Kumar should openly reveal who is making him carry out illegal and unconstitutional acts, and who is issuing the directives that have shattered the integrity of the Election Commission of India,” Gogoi said.

His remarks come amid an ongoing political confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over electoral-roll-related issues and the functioning of the poll panel. The allegations made by Gogoi are political claims and were not independently established in the statement provided.