Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla rejected the Opposition’s notice seeking chief election commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar’s removal, arguing that the allegations lack the necessary proof of misbehaviour. A detailed order on the rejection circulated among lawmakers pointed out that some charges involve matters under judicial review.
“While these allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings,” the order said. It underlined that the Election Commission of India (ECI) “discharges functions that lie at the very core of our democratic framework”. The order added that by their very nature, the ECI’s decisions are bound to carry political consequences, irrespective of the course adopted.
The order said any proposal for the removal of the CEC must be examined with utmost care and circumspection, striking a careful balance between preserving the institutional independence and the right of members to initiate a motion. “Such a motion can be admitted only where there exists credible material disclosing a prima facie case. Admitting removal motions based on administrative disagreements or political perceptions would jeopardise its very independence, the Constitution aims to safeguard.”
The presiding officers primarily focused on the constitutional and legal provisions vis-à-vis the allegations of “misbehaviour”.
The order cited the charge that Kumar’s appointment as CEC was compromised and tainted and said these allegations, even if presumed to be factually correct, do not amount to any act of misbehaviour attributable to the CEC.
The order pointed out that a court case is pending over Kumar’s appointment, and the Supreme Court has not provided any interim relief. It said it is an undisputed fact that the overwhelming majority of CECs, since the 1950s, have served in government before their appointment as CEC. The order said such experience has never been treated as a ground for presuming partiality. “Therefore, no ground of misbehaviour under this charge has been made out by the signatory members,” the order said.
The order rejected the second charge related to Kumar’s statements during a press briefing concerning allegations of irregularities in the preparation of electoral rolls and that the CEC applied different yardsticks to members of two different political formations. “It needs to be appreciated that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are undertaking a very sensitive and delicate work, which necessarily involves political parties. If any allegation is made with regard to the functioning of the Chief Election Commissioner or any other Members of the Commission, it is desirable that such allegations or misgivings are dealt with during periodic press conferences which have been taking place for several decades,” the order said.
“This ensures transparency in the functioning of the Election Commission. Differences of opinion on the appropriateness of such responses, in the absence of clear and demonstrable evidence of abuse of authority or unlawful conduct, cannot amount to misbehaviour so as to warrant his removal.”
The order said it is necessary that charges are not merely speculative or unsubstantiated. “The allegations, on their face, do not appear to be falling within the meaning of ‘misbehaviour’ for which a constitutional functionary can be subjected to the process of his removal,” said the order.
About the Author
