Fresh Oppn push to remove Gyanesh Kumar, ‘grave misconduct’ cited

Opposition parties on Friday, 24 April submitted a fresh notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, escalating their confrontation with the Election Commission over alleged bias and constitutional violations.

According to sources, the notice was submitted to the Rajya Sabha secretary-general by Congress leader Jairam Ramesh and Trinamool Congress leader Sagarika Ghose, with the backing of 73 Opposition MPs. The motion seeks to initiate proceedings for Kumar’s removal through an address to the President.

In a statement on X, Ramesh said the demand was based on “proven misconduct” arising from Kumar’s actions since 15 March, invoking provisions under Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution, along with the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. He added that nine specific charges had been documented “in extreme detail” and could not be “denied or suppressed”.

The notice alleges that Kumar’s “continued hold on the position is an assault on the Constitution”, and accuses him of acting under the direction of the prime minister and the Union home minister — a charge the opposition has reiterated in earlier attempts as well.

At the core of the fresh motion are allegations of “partisan asymmetry” in the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, particularly the Election Commission’s failure to act on complaints regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s televised “address to the nation” on 18 April, when the code was in force in poll-bound states. The notice states that, despite multiple complaints, the Commission had issued “no show-cause notice, no advisory, and no public response”.

This, the Opposition argues, stands in “stark contrast” to what it describes as the Commission’s swift action on complaints filed by the BJP against Opposition leaders.

The MPs have also cited a range of other alleged lapses, including public remarks and social media communications by the Commission that they say targeted a political party, administrative irregularities, and conduct deemed “unbecoming” of a constitutional authority.

Among these is a post on X on 8 April, following a meeting with a TMC delegation, where the Commission said it had offered “straight talk” to the party — described in the notice as an unprecedented instance of a constitutional body publicly naming and criticising a recognised political party during an ongoing election.

The notice further refers to the TMC’s allegation that Kumar told its delegation to “get lost” during a meeting with the full bench of the Commission, calling such behaviour incompatible with the office he holds.

Additional concerns flagged include the handling of electoral roll revisions in states such as West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, with the Opposition alleging large-scale deletion of voters and describing it as “mass disenfranchisement”. The transfer and posting of bureaucrats in poll-bound states have also been questioned, with claims that these actions exceeded the Commission’s constitutional mandate.

The move comes just days after similar notices submitted in both Houses of Parliament were rejected by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan. Both presiding officers had held that, even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for the removal of a CEC.

Undeterred, Opposition parties — including the Congress, TMC, SP, DMK, Left parties, Shiv Sena (UBT), NCP (SP), RJD and IUML — have renewed their demand, urging the Rajya Sabha chairman to admit the notice and constitute a three-member inquiry committee. They have also called for Kumar to recuse himself from election-related duties pending the outcome of such an inquiry.

If admitted and subsequently passed by both Houses of Parliament with the required special majority — which is unlikely — the motion could lead to the removal of the CEC, an outcome that would mark an unprecedented moment in India’s constitutional history.

With PTI inputs