A day before the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-led protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, journalist Faye D’Souza acknowledged that there was no conclusive evidence that the BJP benefited electorally from the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Her remarks on France 24 English on October 9 raise questions about the evidence behind the Opposition’s allegations of ‘vote chori’ and the campaign against the Election Commission.
Faye D’Souza admits evidence is lacking
Speaking on France 24 English on October 9, a day before the CJP-led protest in Delhi, D’Souza discussed a report published by The Indian Express in September 2026. The report highlighted disagreements among Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the other two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, over aspects of the SIR process and other electoral procedures.
The report cited internal communications in which the two Election Commissioners had reportedly raised objections to certain decisions. These disagreements were subsequently used by Opposition parties and CJP supporters to question the functioning of the Election Commission.
D’Souza argued that the objections raised by the two Election Commissioners warranted scrutiny. She said the law required decisions to be taken unanimously or by majority and questioned whether decisions made without the involvement of the other commissioners could be legally challenged.
However, she drew a distinction between concerns over the Election Commission’s decision-making process and allegations that the BJP had benefited from the SIR exercise.
“The questions that we can ask for sure. Now whether the ruling party benefited from this or not is conjecture, and we don’t have really any evidence to, you know, say that conclusively,” D’Souza said during the programme.
Her remarks are significant because allegations that the revision of electoral rolls was designed to benefit the BJP have been central to the Opposition’s political campaign against the Election Commission.
CJP protest against Gyanesh Kumar faces questions over evidence
On October 10, CJP supporters gathered in Delhi to protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and demand his resignation. The protest was linked to allegations concerning the SIR process and the integrity of electoral rolls.
Opposition leaders have repeatedly raised concerns over voter deletions, electoral procedures and the Election Commission’s handling of elections. The allegations have also formed part of the broader ‘vote chori’ campaign.
However, establishing that voters were removed from electoral rolls is different from proving that the deletions were politically motivated or that they gave the BJP an electoral advantage.
D’Souza’s remarks highlighted this distinction. While she questioned aspects of the Election Commission’s decision-making, she acknowledged that the available evidence did not conclusively establish that the ruling party benefited from the disputed decisions.
This raises a question for the CJP and other Opposition groups: can they sustain their campaign against the Chief Election Commissioner without producing evidence to support their allegations of electoral benefit to the BJP?
Whether the protest has lost momentum cannot be established from D’Souza’s comments alone. Her remarks nevertheless expose a gap between questioning the electoral process and proving claims of partisan advantage.
What did The Indian Express report claim?
In September 2026, The Indian Express published a series of reports examining internal disagreements within the Election Commission over the SIR process, Form 6, electoral-roll software, voter additions and deletions, and other administrative decisions.
According to the newspaper, the two Election Commissioners had recorded objections on several occasions over a period of approximately 10 months. The reports raised questions about the concentration of decision-making powers, the role of statutory Electoral Registration Officers and the handling of electoral data.
Opposition parties and CJP supporters cited the reporting to question the functioning of the Election Commission and the authority exercised by Gyanesh Kumar.
However, internal disagreements among officials do not, by themselves, establish that the institution has collapsed or that electoral manipulation has taken place. The legality of any specific decision would depend on the relevant law, procedures and evidence.
The Election Commission’s response and the contents of the internal communications are therefore important to assessing the allegations. Claims of institutional wrongdoing and claims that a particular political party benefited electorally must also be examined separately.
The Indian Express editorial questions the Opposition’s ‘vote chori’ narrative
On October 10, The Indian Express published an editorial titled “It’s about the voter, not the party they vote for.” The editorial questioned the Opposition’s approach to electoral reform and its repeated claims of stolen elections.
It argued that concerns about voting rights should not be reduced to a political campaign centred on electoral defeats. The editorial also pointed out that Congress had been losing elections well before the SIR exercise began in 2025.
“Congress has not lost election after election for a decade and more because of the recent SIR or the poll referee,” the editorial stated.
The argument introduced a distinction between legitimate questions about the electoral process and the Opposition’s broader claims that elections had been stolen.
The editorial’s publication on the day of the CJP protest also drew attention to differences between scrutiny of the Election Commission and the political conclusions being drawn from that scrutiny.
However, the editorial should not be treated as a retraction of the newspaper’s earlier reporting. It questioned the Opposition’s political interpretation of electoral concerns while continuing to discuss issues surrounding the SIR process.
Is the Opposition on same page?
D’Souza’s remarks present an interesting contrast with the more sweeping claims made by Opposition leaders and CJP supporters. She questioned the Election Commission’s internal decision-making but acknowledged that there was no conclusive evidence that the BJP benefited electorally from the disputed decisions.
That distinction matters in a debate where allegations of voter deletions, institutional bias and electoral manipulation are frequently discussed together.
The CJP and Opposition parties may continue to demand answers from the Election Commission. But claims that the process was designed to favour a political party require evidence beyond internal disagreements or procedural objections.
For now, D’Souza’s comments do not establish that the CJP protest has failed or that its supporters have abandoned their demands. They do, however, highlight the need to separate documented procedural concerns from allegations that remain unproven.
