Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI: Rajya Sabha chairman CP Radhakrishnan rejected notice by the opposition to move a motion for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In his order dismissing the notice, Radhakrishnan said that while the allegations were relevant for political debate, they did not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings.“Some charges involve matters already decided or currently under judicial review. While these allegations are relevant for political debate, they do not prima facie meet the high constitutional bar for removal proceedings,” he said.“Therefore, the prima-facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met. Against this backdrop, having considered the notice of Motion and the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, I am of the firm opinion that the notice of Motion does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, I refuse to admit the notice of Motion,” he added.Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday dismissed separate notices from the opposition seeking a motion to remove Kumar from his position.In March, the opposition had submitted notices to the Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha chairman against the Chief Election Commissioner, citing seven allegations. These included alleged “partisan and discriminatory conduct in office,” “deliberate obstruction of electoral fraud investigations,” and “mass disenfranchisement.”The notices were signed by opposition parties including Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, RJD, and Left parties, all part of the opposition INDIA bloc, along with the Aam Aadmi Party, which is no longer formally in the alliance. Some independent MPs also added their signatures to the notices.Radhakrishnan provided a detailed rebuttal to each of the opposition’s charges against Gyanesh Kumar in his order. On the first charge regarding the validity of Kumar’s appointment, Radhakrishnan noted, “Even if presumed correct, these allegations do not amount to any act of misbehaviour attributable to the Chief Election Commissioner.” He dismissed the second charge on statements about electoral roll irregularities, saying they do not constitute ‘misbehaviour’. Rebutting the third and fourth charges on obstruction of electoral fraud investigations and SIR in Bihar, he said compliance with Supreme Court directions and ongoing judicial scrutiny preclude any claim of misbehaviour. On the fifth charge about nationwide SIR expansion, he called the assertions “speculative and conjectural” and insufficient to prove misbehaviour. Regarding contempt or non-compliance with Supreme Court orders, he stated that such issues are handled through the court’s contempt jurisdiction. Finally, on the seventh charge alleging compromise of independence, he said, “In the absence of concrete particulars or substantiated evidence demonstrating deviation from constitutional or statutory obligations, such assertions fails in the test of prima facie instance of ‘misbehaviour’.”
