New Delhi: The Congress has doubled down on its defence of calls for “regime change”, arguing that replacing an elected government through the ballot box is a legitimate democratic objective, not a conspiracy to seize power.
The latest intervention came on Saturday, October 17, when senior Congress leader and former Union minister P. Chidambaram defended the phrase amid a growing political confrontation over protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
In a post on X, Chidambaram said the Opposition’s duty was to “oppose, expose and depose” the government, explaining that this meant opposing it politically, exposing its actions in Parliament and removing it through elections. He questioned why the BJP had reacted so strongly to the phrase “regime change”, arguing that the prospect of changing governments was a normal feature of democracy.
His remarks followed a sharp exchange between the Congress and the BJP after senior advocate Prashant Bhushan described the agitation against Gyanesh Kumar as a “fight for regime change”. Student activist Neha Bora also referred to the Gen Z movement in Bangladesh, prompting BJP leaders to accuse the Opposition of pursuing a political agenda beyond electoral reform.
The Congress has rejected the charge that it wants to remove the government outside the electoral process. Its argument is that peaceful protests, demands for accountability and efforts to defeat an incumbent government in elections are legitimate parts of democratic politics.
Pawan Khera challenges BJP over meaning of regime change
On Friday, Congress leader Pawan Khera pushed back against Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s criticism of the Opposition’s language.
Singh had questioned whether references to “regime change” revealed that the Opposition’s campaign was about removing the government rather than addressing concerns over electoral reforms and the SIR exercise.
Khera responded that the Congress had openly stated its intention to defeat the government through elections. Referring to the party’s “Vote Chor, Gaddi Chhod” campaign, he argued that replacing the ruling party was precisely what an Opposition was expected to seek.
He also recalled the 1977 election, when the Congress lost power at the Centre after the Emergency, and questioned why the BJP was uncomfortable with the prospect of another electoral change of government.
Khera further pointed to the BJP’s earlier support for movements involving Prashant Bhushan, arguing that political mobilisation against an incumbent government had not always been treated as a threat when the BJP itself was in Opposition.
The BJP, meanwhile, has maintained that the language used by some protest organisers raises questions about the movement’s intentions. The disagreement has turned the meaning of “regime change” into a political flashpoint, with both sides contesting whether the protests should be understood primarily as a campaign for electoral accountability or as a broader challenge to the government.
Supreme Court hears two sides of the SIR controversy
The political confrontation is unfolding alongside two separate proceedings in the Supreme Court.
On October 15, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Election Commission, Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders.
The petition challenges decisions relating to the SIR process and raises concerns about alleged large-scale voter deletions and the transparency of electoral rolls. The Opposition has sought disclosure of relevant records, an audit of deletions, publication of booth-wise information and safeguards against removing eligible voters without notice and an opportunity to be heard. It has also sought suspension of the exercise pending judicial consideration.
Separately, the court issued notice to Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other Opposition leaders on a petition challenging the October 12 march to the Supreme Court and seeking restrictions on political demonstrations inside court premises.
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice said the judiciary could not be browbeaten and indicated that one of the petitioners would be asked to explain his conduct during the march. The two cases raise distinct questions: one concerns the legality and transparency of the electoral revision process, while the other concerns the conduct of the demonstration at the Supreme Court.
Election Commission’s new revision process adds to debate
The Election Commission’s October 15 announcement of an annual Special Summary Revision across 17 states and Union Territories has also entered the political debate.
Unlike the SIR exercise, the Special Summary Revision is a periodic update of electoral rolls intended to add newly eligible voters and remove entries of people who have died or moved away. Existing electors do not have to submit additional documents merely to have their names carried forward into the revised rolls.
The Congress has separately highlighted the Commission’s direction that recognised political parties receive copies of draft and final electoral rolls in a readable PDF format. The party has long demanded machine-readable voter lists, arguing that they would make it easier to search records, compare entries and identify possible discrepancies.
However, it remains important to establish whether the new direction delivers genuinely machine-readable data or simply provides PDFs that are easier to access. That distinction matters because searchable digital records and scanned images do not offer the same ability to conduct large-scale, automated audits.
For the Congress, the issue is not simply the number of names removed from electoral rolls but whether the process is transparent, independently verifiable and equipped with effective safeguards for eligible voters. The Election Commission, for its part, says the revision exercise is intended to improve the accuracy of electoral rolls.
Congress invokes India’s history of political change
The Congress has also sought to place the current controversy within India’s history of political mobilisation and changes of government.
The 1977 election remains a central example. After the Emergency, voters removed the Congress from power at the Centre, demonstrating that even a government with a long record in office could be defeated through elections. Subsequent changes of government, including the BJP’s victory in 2014, further illustrate the electorate’s power to determine who governs.
The party has also invoked former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the mass movements associated with Jayaprakash Narayan and George Fernandes during the 1970s to question why street protests and calls for political change should now be characterised as conspiratorial.
The argument is not that every protest or political slogan is beyond scrutiny. Rather, the Congress maintains that demanding the removal of an incumbent government is different from seeking to overthrow the constitutional order.
That distinction has become central to the dispute. The BJP has questioned the intentions behind the protests, while the Congress insists that its objective is to defeat the government through elections and press for accountability over the electoral process.
With the SIR controversy now playing out both on the streets and in court, the dispute over “regime change” has become part of a larger argument about electoral transparency, the limits of political protest and the role of the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy.
