Indian opposition parties are gearing up to move a fresh motion in Parliament, seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar. This renewed effort comes after their initial attempt was rejected by presiding officers, according to news agency PTI.
Leaders from several opposition parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party, and DMK, are reportedly collaborating on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings. While it remains undecided whether the notice will be introduced in one or both Houses of Parliament, the aim is to garner at least 200 Members of Parliament (MPs) signatures, significantly more than the previous attempt.
Previous Motion Rejected
An earlier motion, moved on March 12 by 63 Rajya Sabha members and 130 Lok Sabha members, sought Mr. Kumar’s removal. However, these notices were rejected on April 6 by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan.
In their separate 17-page rulings, the presiding officers stated that even if the allegations were assumed true, they did not meet the stringent constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for a CEC’s removal. They noted that the charges lacked sufficient proof and often related to matters already decided or under judicial scrutiny. While acknowledging the issues raised might be part of political debate, they did not satisfy the “high constitutional bar” mandated by the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Allegations Against CEC Kumar
In their prior notices, the Opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a “failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity” and acting under the “thumb of the executive.” The allegations of “proved misbehaviour” included claims of a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning, alleged “graded response” targeting opposition leaders, obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and refusal to share crucial data and materials.
Further accusations involved enabling large-scale disenfranchisement through Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in regions like Bihar, delaying compliance with Supreme Court directives, and acting in alignment with the political executive.
Presiding Officers' Stance
The presiding officers, however, dismissed these claims. They ruled that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct. They also asserted that administrative decisions or differences in public statements do not necessarily indicate wilful abuse of authority. Matters such as data-sharing and electoral roll revisions, they noted, fall within the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission and are subject to judicial review. Many of the issues cited were characterized as speculative, politically interpretive, or sub judice.
The renewed push comes shortly after the Opposition successfully defeated the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha, signaling a continued political confrontation.