Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi
New Delhi, Apr 7: C P Radhakrishnan and Om Birla on Tuesday rejected notices moved by Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, stating that the allegations failed to establish a prima facie case of “misbehaviour”.
In separate 17-page orders, the presiding officers said the charges lacked substantive proof, related to matters already adjudicated, or were currently under judicial consideration. While the issues raised may be politically relevant, they did not meet the “high constitutional bar” required under Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to initiate removal proceedings.
The notices, submitted on March 12, were signed by 63 Rajya Sabha members and 130 Lok Sabha members and included seven charges against the CEC, all of which were examined and rejected.
On the allegation that Kumar’s appointment was “tainted” due to the pending challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 in the Supreme Court, the Chair held that pendency of a legal challenge does not amount to misbehaviour.
Claims regarding his previous administrative roles indicating bias were also dismissed, with the order noting that many former CECs had similar backgrounds without any presumption of partiality.
The charge that the Election Commission applied different standards to the government and Opposition was rejected for lack of “clear demonstrable evidence” of misuse of authority. The Chair highlighted the sensitive and constitutional nature of the Commission’s functions.
Allegations that the Commission obstructed investigations into electoral fraud by withholding information from state authorities were also dismissed. The order stated that legal remedies exist through courts once an FIR is registered, and such issues do not constitute grounds for removal.
On the refusal to share machine-readable electoral rolls, the order said the decision was in line with Supreme Court directions and consistent with the right to privacy recognised in the K. S. Puttaswamy case.
Several charges related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar were also rejected. The Chair noted that the Election Commission has broad powers under Article 324 and that the exercise has been examined by the Supreme Court, which upheld its authority.
The allegation of contempt of court was dismissed, with the Chair stating that such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, not removal proceedings.
The final charge, accusing the CEC of failing to maintain institutional independence, was termed vague and unsupported by specific evidence.