Missed chance for accountability: why rejecting the notice to remove CEC harms democracy

The rejection by the Rajya Sabha chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla on Monday, 6 April, of a notice submitted by 193 Opposition MPs across both Houses seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, is a first in the 76 years since the Constitution was adopted.

No reason was cited for the rejection. The rules required at least 50 MPs to sign the notice if it was moved in the Rajya Sabha and 100 MPs if it was submitted in the Lok Sabha. In all, 63 Rajya Sabha MPs and 130 Lok Sabha MPs signed it.

It can be argued that the notice was a largely symbolic move. With the numbers stacked against the Opposition in both the Houses, the motion would eventually have fallen.

Had the notices been accepted, a three‑member inquiry committee—comprising the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist—would have been set up by the Lok Sabha speaker and Rajya Sabha chairperson. Proceedings would have followed judicial protocols, with witnesses examined and the CEC given the right to present his defence.

On submission of the report by the committee, Parliament would have debated and voted on the motion, with the CEC entitled to defend himself during the discussion. During the discussion in Parliament, the government would have found it hard to defend some of the charges against Gyanesh Kumar. No surprises then that the notice for removal of the CEC was rejected

Significantly, the Union government in 2023 granted immunity to election commissioners against prosecution for criminal offences. It was never quite made clear what triggered this move. A discussion in Parliament would have allowed the Opposition to question this. The government would also have been asked to explain why it went against the Supreme Court’s direction to free the Election Commission from executive interference and insulate the appointment of election commissioners from the government’s influence.

Opposition MPs expressed no surprise over the rejection of the notice. “We know what happened to the last chairman of the Rajya Sabha who accepted a petition moved by Opposition MPs,” posted Jairam Ramesh of the Congress. Manoj Jha of the RJD invoked Shakespeare to exclaim, “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark”. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared shocked. “By this logic, we don't need a Parliament at all. The presiding officer cannot without reason, simply refuse to admit a motion,” he posted on X.

With the independence and the credibility of the Election Commission being questioned by the Opposition, and elections attracting criticism, Parliament was the right forum to discuss the issue. The disenfranchisement of millions of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is a national issue and the nation has the right to hear both the CEC and his detractors speak. The discussion could also have thrown up positive ideas for electoral reforms. Yes, it would have been hugely embarrassing for Gyanesh Kumr but the rejection of the notice to remove him does little to enhance his standing or restore his credibility.

Radhakrishnan and Birla could have justified delaying a decision in view of the elections being held in five states. They could have waited for the results to be declared on 4 May before accepting the notice and set up the committee in time for the next parliamentary session to take up the report for discussion and voting. By taking the easier option of rejecting the notice, they may have done a great disservice to Indian democracy. By rejecting the notice out of hand, an opportunity has been lost.

A Constitutional issue is whether the discretion of the RS chairman and LS speaker extend to matters extraneous to the Parliament. The notice was against another Constitutional functionary and the Constitution provides for his removal. If the notice was supported by the requisite number of MPs and was in order with no procedural defect, did the two presiding officers have the discretion to reject it without citing reasons?

The 10-page notice submitted by the Opposition had accused the CEC of being “subservient” to the executive and alleged the “wilful and deliberate abuse of power and position of a constitutional office”. It listed seven charges against the CEC—ranging from “partisan and discriminatory conduct in office” to “deliberate obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud” and “mass disenfranchisement”.

The notice also cited a public ultimatum to the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi at an August 2025 press conference when the CEC demanded that the LOP either apologise immediately or file a signed affidavit backing his allegations of “vote theft” within a week. There was no third option before the LOP, Gyanesh Kumar had asserted. Opposition parties argued that such remarks were partisan and compromised the neutrality of the office. They also flagged alleged voter roll manipulation in two Karnataka Assembly seats, Aland and Mahadevapura.