Guwahati: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is facing renewed political scrutiny after former Kerala chief secretary Jiji Thomson claimed that Kumar, while serving as an IAS officer in 2016, had asked him whether he would contest the 2019 Lok Sabha election as a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate from Pathanamthitta.

Thomson, who was serving as Kerala chief secretary at the time, said the conversation took place during a flight to Delhi. According to Thomson, Kumar asked about his future plans and suggested that he could contest the Lok Sabha election on a BJP ticket and subsequently become a Union minister if he won.

“I promptly declined the offer, as I was not interested in contesting elections,” Thomson told Asianet News, adding that he was surprised by the suggestion because he felt such an offer should not have come from Kumar.

Thomson retired as Kerala chief secretary in 2016. His account has since triggered fresh demands for Kumar’s resignation, including from former Kerala Chief Electoral Officer Teekaram Meena, who was Kumar’s IAS batchmate.

The controversy comes at a time when the Election Commission is facing questions over its internal decision-making. A recent media report claimed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on at least 14 occasions over a 10-month period to decisions or orders allegedly issued without their knowledge.

The reported disagreements included changes to statutory voter registration Form 6 and the centralisation of control over the electoral roll database. The Election Commission, however, has maintained that its official orders, decisions and administrative directions have legal sanction, and that differences of opinion are a normal part of institutional deliberations.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also attacked Kumar following Thomson’s allegations, claiming that the then IAS officer had been involved in recruiting for the BJP before later becoming the Chief Election Commissioner. Gandhi further accused the government of placing Kumar in charge of the country’s elections. These are political allegations and have not been independently established by the material cited above.

Meanwhile, a separate controversy from Kumar’s Kerala posting nearly two decades ago has resurfaced.

Senior CPM leader and former Kerala finance minister T M Thomas Isaac recently revisited Kumar’s tenure as the state’s Public Works Department secretary in 2006. Isaac alleged that Kumar was among the officials named in the suicide note of Malaysian national Lee Been Seen, who was associated with PATI-BEL, a joint venture involved in a World Bank-funded road project under the Kerala State Transport Project.

Lee died by suicide in Kuala Lumpur in November 2006, reportedly after returning from Kerala.

According to Isaac, Lee’s suicide note contained allegations of harassment, corruption and demands for money by officials associated with the project. Isaac said Kumar was among those named in the allegations. A vigilance inquiry followed, and Kumar was transferred out of the PWD before the end of 2006.

Isaac has acknowledged that he did not personally read the suicide note and said he was recounting allegations that were discussed at the time. The outcome of the vigilance inquiry also remains unclear.

The dispute involved a road project initially estimated at around Rs 216 crore. According to Isaac, disagreements over land acquisition, project execution and payments contributed to delays, with the government and contractor blaming each other for the problems.

Isaac claimed that the government eventually had to pay around Rs 35 crore in compensation by the end of 2007 and that the overall cost of completing the project was expected to reach at least Rs 330 crore.

The allegations surrounding the 2006 project have resurfaced in the context of the current political debate over Kumar’s role as Chief Election Commissioner. Isaac has also questioned the process through which Kumar was appointed to the post in 2025, particularly the change in the composition of the selection panel for the Election Commission.

The earlier selection framework proposed by the Supreme Court included the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Justice of India. Parliament subsequently enacted a law replacing the Chief Justice with a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The amended selection mechanism has been challenged before the Supreme Court.

The latest controversy therefore brings together three separate issues: Thomson’s account of an alleged BJP-related political approach to him while Kumar was a serving IAS officer, questions raised over differences within the Election Commission, and allegations from 2006 surrounding Kumar’s tenure as Kerala PWD secretary.

Kumar’s role and conduct have consequently become the focus of renewed political demands for his removal, while the Election Commission has defended its institutional procedures and said differences among commissioners form part of normal deliberations.