CEC Gyanesh Kumar Must Be Above Suspicion

The Chief Election Commissioner occupies a constitutional office whose sweep and influence are difficult to exaggerate. He is the custodian of the machinery through which the people exercise their sovereign right to choose their government.

The credibility of that machinery, therefore, depends not merely on the Election Commission being impartial but also on its head being demonstrably above suspicion.

That is precisely why the allegations now resurfacing against CEC Gyanesh Kumar cannot be dismissed as political mudslinging. Keralam has ordered a fresh Vigilance probe into allegations dating back to 2006, when Kumar was secretary of the state public works department.

The case concerns Malaysian engineer Lee See Been, associated with a World Bank-funded road project. Lee’s purported suicide note reportedly named Kumar and alleged harassment and problems over payments.

Fresh Probe Into Old Allegations

A Vigilance enquiry was ordered at the time, but it did not reach a definitive conclusion after Kumar moved on to central deputation. The passage of two decades cannot become a convenient burial ground for serious allegations.

Nor does the reopening of an investigation establish Kumar’s guilt. What it establishes is the need for the truth to be brought into the open. Keralam’s home minister Ramesh Chennithala has said the fresh complaint raises serious questions about the original enquiry and has asked Vigilance to examine the records and proceed according to law.

There are questions that demand answers. What exactly did the original Vigilance inquiry find? Was Kumar exonerated of the allegations? If so, where is the report? If the enquiry was inconclusive, why was it not pursued to its logical conclusion?

How did Kumar leave Keralam for central deputation while the allegations were pending? Was there any political or bureaucratic intervention? Were the circumstances surrounding Lee’s death ever properly investigated? And, since the deceased was a Malaysian national, did the episode have any diplomatic or bilateral implications?

Questions Over His Appointment

There is an even larger question. When Kumar was selected for the country’s most powerful electoral office after his retirement, were these allegations known to those who considered his appointment? If they were known, what assessment was made of them? If they were not known, why not?

These questions assume greater urgency because Kumar is already facing unprecedented public criticism over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Opposition parties and student groups have accused the Election Commission of undermining democratic rights. The controversy has made public confidence in the institution more fragile. The answer is not to prejudge Kumar; it is to subject him to the same standard of accountability that his office demands.

Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. The complete case, including the original Vigilance findings and every subsequent action, should, therefore, be placed before the public. Nothing less will restore confidence in Gyanesh Kumar.

Published on: Monday, October 05, 2026, 07:16 PM IST