Thomas Isaac Questions Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumars Integrity Amid Controversy

Thiruvananthapuram, September 25 (Daily Kiran) : Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has found himself at the center of a significant political controversy once again. Thomas Isaac, a senior leader of the CPI(M) and former Finance Minister of Kerala, has raised serious questions about Kumar’s entire administrative career. Isaac alleges that Kumar was removed from his position as the Secretary of the Public Works Department (PWD) in Kerala following a suicide case involving an engineer from a Malaysian company, who mentioned Kumar in a suicide note.

Isaac stated, “Gyanesh Kumar was an IAS officer of the Kerala cadre, and he had to leave the state under very serious circumstances. In 2006, when the leftist government led by E.S. Sachidanand came to power, he was in charge of the PWD, which was implementing the Kerala State Road Development Project funded by the World Bank. A Malaysian company had contracted for a specific section of the state highway, and the chief engineer of the construction firm committed suicide after going to Kuala Lumpur. He left a suicide note naming Gyanesh Kumar.”

The CPI(M) leader elaborated on how government officials created numerous obstacles during the program’s implementation, solicited bribes, and harassed the engineer to the point of desperation. When the issue came to light, Kumar was promptly removed from his post, and a vigilance inquiry was initiated.

Isaac noted that within two to three months, Kumar successfully transitioned to a central service role under the Defense Ministry. He remained there until the UDF government came to power in 2011. In 2012, he became the Resident Commissioner of Kerala House in Delhi, and when the left regained power in 2016, he returned to central service. Isaac accused him of facilitating the disintegration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir during this time.

“There are rumors, though I cannot confirm them directly, that he became a favorite of Amit Shah. He had grand ideas about dismantling states. I believe he was a mastermind behind several operations, including the Ram Janmabhoomi temple,” Isaac claimed.

He further asserted that discussions are once again swirling around Kumar being involved in a scheme to establish a trust that operates with public funds, whether from the central government or private donations, yet remains outside the purview of the Right to Information Act. “We are now witnessing the consequences of such manipulation. I think after the significant success at Ram Janmabhoomi, PM Modi and Amit Shah felt he was the most suitable candidate for the Election Commission,” he added.

Isaac criticized Kumar for disregarding a Supreme Court ruling that mandated the selection of the Election Commission to be conducted transparently in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. He claimed that the Chief Justice of India was removed and replaced by a minister appointed by the Prime Minister, all to ensure Kumar’s appointment as Chief Election Commissioner.

Isaac pointed out that this was a well-thought-out plan that the public does not fully grasp. First, the burden of proving eligibility has shifted from the objector to the voter. This is a significant change. Secondly, the eligibility rules have been structured in such a way that it is nearly impossible for the average person to gather the necessary evidence. They have even gone a step further.

Meanwhile, former CPI(M) MP Hannan Mollah stated that Gyanesh Kumar’s actions are anti-national, as the right to vote belongs to the voters. He has undermined this right and removed millions from voter lists. “It is his responsibility to monitor voting management and the role of political parties, as well as their expenditures. He is not fulfilling this duty and is instead facilitating the BJP while creating as many obstacles as possible for other parties,” Mollah remarked.

He added that Kumar’s actions have compromised the integrity of the Election Commission, which is supposed to make decisions collectively.