Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar uttered lies in response to questions he was asked and deliberately evaded many of them in the press conference he addressed in the wake of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s exposé of alleged vote theft in Mahadevapura assembly constituency in Karnataka during the 2024 general elections.Kumar’s conduct and replies have proved the apprehensions of B.R. Ambedkar true. Very presciently Ambedkar had said in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949 that in the absence of constitutional provision preventing the government of the day to select an unworthy person to head the Election Commission, it might appoint “either a fool or a knave as Election Commissioner” who would in all likelihood “come under the thumb of the executive.”That fear was expressed by him while replying to the discussion in the assembly on Article 289 (now Article 324) of the Constitution dealing with the Election Commission of India. Gyanesh Kumar has made that fear come true.SC’s apprehensionsBefore examining how he proved those apprehensions true it is important to flag that Kumar’s responses were totally contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court of India in its 2023 judgement in Anoop Baranwala vs Union of India. In that judgement, SC observed: “An independent person ( Election Commissioner) cannot be biased. Holding the scales evenly, even in the stormiest of times, not being servile to the powerful, but coming to the rescue of the weak and the wronged, who are otherwise in the right, would qualify as true independence.”Preceding those two lines the SC remarked: “An Election Commissioner is answerable to the nation. The people of the country look forward to him so that democracy is always preserved and fostered. We may qualify the above observations by stating that true independence of a Body of persons is not to be confused with sheer unilateralism. This means that the Election Commission must act within the Constitutional framework and the laws. It cannot transgress the mandate of either and still claim to be independent. Riding on the horse of independence, it cannot act in an unfair manner either. Independence must be related, finally, to the question of ‘what is right and what is wrong’. A person, who is weak kneed before the powers that be, cannot be appointed as an Election Commissioner. A person, who is in a state of obligation or feels indebted to the one who appointed him, fails the nation and can have no place in the conduct of elections, forming the very foundation of democracy.”Convoluted logicIt is worthwhile to prove by examining one of Kumar’s answers in the press conference, that in the words of Ambedkar he “came under the thumb of the executive” and affirmed the apprehensions of the SC: “A person (Election Commissioner), who is in a state of obligation or feels indebted to the one who appointed him, fails the nation.”That answer was concerning Kumar’s demand for an affidavit from Rahul Gandhi with regards to the aforementioned electoral fraud and not asking for such an affidavit from Anurag Thakur, Lok Sabha MP of the ruling BJP, who claimed similar allegations in multiple constituencies in several states including in Rae Bareli in Uttar Pradesh from where Rahul Gandhi won the election.Kumar in justification of sparing Thakur offered very convoluted logic and stated, “One thing is to make a complaint, another is to spread confusion, and yet another is to level accusations on the EC.”He further compounded his convolution and said, “Under graded response, if you are not an elector in that constituency, then your only recourse is the Registration of Electors Rules 20(3)(b).…”Does this mean that Gyanesh Kumar, an incumbent of a constitutional post, celebrated the legitimacy of his “graded response” by asking for an affidavit from Rahul Gandhi because he, by virtue of belonging to opposition, remained at a lower grade and spared Anurag Thakur on the ground that he occupied a higher grade for his status as a BJP MP, belonging to the treasury benches? It reminds one of Ambedkar’s indictment of the caste system representing “graded social inequality.” Gyanesh Kumar’s “graded response” treating Rahul Gandhi as an accused and leaving untouched Anurag Thakur who is similarly situated is akin to hierarchy of caste system depicted by Ambedkar as “an ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt.” In doing so, he proves the point that he is “under the thumb of the executive” and so holding Gandhi to account and not applying the same standard to Thakur.Kumar also asked Rahul Gandhi to submit an affidavit within a week or else apologise to the nation. No such forceful plea was made by him to Anurag Thakur. Clearly, the CEC in doing so, is displaying a discriminatory and unfair treatment to Rahul Gandhi.Citizenship issueIn response to a question on why the ECI is ascertaining the citizenship status of the people before enrolling them as voters in Bihar under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, the CEC very strangely justified its stand by invoking, among others, Article 326, which mandates that citizens of India of 18 years of age and above can only exercise their votes. That stand of Kumar is contrary to the law established by SC in its 1995 judgement in Lal Babu Hussein vs. Electoral Registeration Officer prohibiting ECI to examine citizenship status. Kumar’s justification on the citizenship issue is in sync with the earlier stand of Union home minister Amit Shah’s that National Register of Citizenship would be conducted across India for ascertaining who is a citizen of India. It again confirms that Gyanesh Kumar has come under, in the words of Ambedkar, “thumb of the executive.”In the midst of the SIR in Bihar, apparently several illegal migrants from Bangladesh and Nepal were detected. Kumar while dealing with a question concerning the identification of illegal migrants stated that their numbers would be ascertained only after the final electoral roll is prepared. This again corresponds to the claim of the Modi regime that ghuspethiyas, or illegal migrants, would be removed from India.He defended the decision of ECI not to share the CCTV footage covering voting booths on the ridiculous plea that it would violate the privacy of voters and go against the honour of “mothers, sisters, daughters and daughters in law” by exposing their identities.From the catalogue of answers he gave while dealing with sharp questions, a few of the above mentioned responses of Gyanesh Kumar testify to the fact in his conduct and replies. Ambedkar’s and SC’s fears are playing out. The credibility of the ECI is shattered.S.N. Sahu served as an Officer on Special Duty to former President K.R. Narayanan.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.