A significant effort by opposition parties to initiate the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar recently met a roadblock as Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan rejected their impeachment motion. This marks the first instance where a formal notice seeking the removal of an Election Commission chief garnered such widespread support, with signatures from 130 Lok Sabha MPs and 63 Rajya Sabha members. The 10-page motion outlined seven distinct charges against the CEC, ranging from allegations of partisan conduct to accusations of mass voter disenfranchisement across various states.
Key points
- The impeachment motion targeting Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar was rejected by Rajya Sabha Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan on Monday.
- This motion was historic, being the first time such a removal notice against an Election Commission chief received signatures from 130 Lok Sabha and 63 Rajya Sabha members.
- The 10-page document detailed seven charges, including claims of partisan behaviour, voter disenfranchisement, and problematic handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
- Opposition parties, led by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), have accused CEC Kumar of bias and using the SIR exercise to potentially favour the ruling party.
- Despite the rejection, opposition groups retain limited options, including refiling the motion in the Lok Sabha or approaching the Supreme Court.
What we know so far
On Monday, the Rajya Sabha Chairman, C.P. Radhakrishnan, formally dismissed the impeachment motion that had been submitted by a coalition of opposition parties against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This rejection came after the motion, unprecedented in its scope for an Election Commission head, had gathered substantial parliamentary backing, with 130 members from the Lok Sabha and 63 from the Rajya Sabha affixing their signatures.
The detailed, 10-page motion presented seven specific accusations against CEC Kumar. These charges encompassed a spectrum of alleged misconduct, including claims of partisan behaviour, instances of mass disenfranchisement affecting voters in multiple states, and concerns regarding his management of the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The notice specifically highlighted issues with the CEC's handling of previous SIR exercises in states like Bihar and its implications for forthcoming elections, such as those in West Bengal. Accusations of "proved misbehaviour" and displaying partiality towards a particular political party were also prominently featured in the document.
The Trinamool Congress (TMC) played a pivotal role in spearheading this motion, emerging amidst increasing criticism from various opposition factions directed at Gyanesh Kumar. These parties have consistently alleged that the CEC exhibited bias and conducted the ongoing SIR exercise in an arbitrary manner, purportedly to benefit the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been a vocal critic, leading protests against the SIR process within her state, while other opposition figures, including Rahul Gandhi, have contributed to a broader "vote chori" (vote theft) campaign, raising concerns about electoral integrity.
Following the motion's rejection, prominent opposition voices expressed their discontent. Congress MP Jairam Ramesh referenced a past incident involving former Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, who resigned shortly after accepting a motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, implying a pattern or consequence for those who might accept such challenges. TMC MP Derek O'Brien sharply criticized the central government, accusing it of "mocking" the parliamentary system and noting that no explicit reason was provided for the motion's rejection, stating, "NO REASON GIVEN."
Context and background
The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) holds a pivotal position within India's democratic framework, tasked with upholding the integrity of the electoral process, ensuring free, fair, and transparent elections across the country. The independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI), including the CEC and Election Commissioners, is enshrined in the Constitution to safeguard against political interference. Given the immense responsibility and the critical nature of their role, the process for removing a CEC is deliberately stringent, mirroring that of a Supreme Court judge.
The procedure for removing a CEC is governed by Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which specifies that a Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed from office "in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court." This typically involves a motion supported by a majority of the total membership of each House of Parliament and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting, on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'. This process is further elaborated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the detailed steps, including the formation of an inquiry committee to investigate the charges if the motion is admitted by the presiding officer of either house.
The recent impeachment motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, though ultimately rejected, underscores heightened political tensions surrounding the Election Commission's functioning. The allegations of partisan conduct and mass disenfranchisement are serious, striking at the very core of electoral fairness. The reference to the "Special Intensive Revision" (SIR) of electoral rolls is particularly significant. SIR is a standard, periodic exercise undertaken by the Election Commission to update and purify voter lists, removing deceased voters, duplicate entries, and enrolling new eligible voters. While crucial for maintaining accurate rolls, the process can become contentious if perceived as being conducted arbitrarily or with political motives, leading to accusations of voter suppression or manipulation. The opposition's concern that the SIR was being used to aid a specific political party highlights deep-seated mistrust regarding the impartiality of the electoral machinery.
The political climate leading up to this motion has seen various opposition parties increasingly vocal in their criticism of the ECI, particularly after recent election cycles. Concerns over electronic voting machines (EVMs), electoral bond schemes, and the timing of elections have contributed to a narrative of eroding institutional independence. The motion against CEC Kumar can be viewed as an escalation of these concerns, an attempt to exert parliamentary pressure and draw national attention to their grievances. The 2018 precedent, where Congress challenged the rejection of an impeachment motion against then-CJI Dipak Misra by Vice-President M. Venkaiah Naidu, further illustrates that challenging such rejections through legal avenues, specifically the Supreme Court, is a recognised, albeit difficult, path for opposition parties seeking redress.
What happens next
Despite the Rajya Sabha Chairman's rejection of the impeachment motion, the opposition is not entirely without recourse, though their options are somewhat limited and involve significant procedural hurdles. One primary avenue available is to refile the motion in the Lok Sabha. The process for such a motion originates independently in each House of Parliament. Therefore, a new notice would need to be submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker, who would then decide whether to admit it. If admitted, the entire removal procedure, as laid out in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, would restart from the initial stage within the lower house. This process is typically lengthy and demands substantial cross-party consensus.
Alternatively, the opposition can consider moving the Supreme Court. This legal challenge would involve questioning the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision to reject the motion. There is a precedent for such a move; in 2018, the Congress party challenged the then-Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu's rejection of an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal, who was also a signatory to the recent CEC impeachment notice, was involved in that previous attempt to seek an urgent listing before a Supreme Court bench. While a direct legal challenge might not immediately lead to the CEC's removal, it could potentially build significant "moral pressure" on Gyanesh Kumar, possibly influencing him to consider stepping aside from his post, though this outcome is not guaranteed and remains speculative.
Both refiling in the Lok Sabha and moving the Supreme Court represent arduous and time-consuming processes. The success of either path would depend on various factors, including the strength of the legal arguments, the political will of a broad spectrum of opposition parties, and the judiciary's interpretation of parliamentary and constitutional powers.
FAQ
- What was the impeachment motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar about?
The motion accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar of seven counts, including partisan conduct, mass voter disenfranchisement, and arbitrary handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, allegedly favouring a specific political party. - Why was the motion rejected by the Rajya Sabha Chairman?
The source text indicates that the Rajya Sabha Chairman, C.P. Radhakrishnan, rejected the motion. According to TMC MP Derek O'Brien, no explicit reason was given for the rejection, though presiding officers have discretion in admitting such motions. - What is the "Special Intensive Revision" (SIR) of electoral rolls?
SIR is a process undertaken by the Election Commission to update and "purify" voter lists by enrolling new eligible voters, removing deceased individuals, and correcting errors, ensuring accurate and up-to-date electoral rolls. - What are the opposition's options now after the rejection?
The opposition has two main options: they can refile the impeachment motion in the Lok Sabha, which would initiate a new process, or they can approach the Supreme Court to challenge the Rajya Sabha Chairman's decision to reject the motion. - How is a Chief Election Commissioner removed from office in India?
A Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed from office by an order of the President, based on a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority (a majority of the total membership of each House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting) on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity', similar to the removal process for a Supreme Court judge.
