Motion against CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Charges relevant for political debate, not for removal proceedings: RS Chairman & LS Speaker

The Rajya Sabha Chairman said such a motion can be admitted only where there exists "credible material."

New Delhi: The Opposition allegations seeking removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar “lacks proof necessary to constitute misbehaviour” and “do not prima facie meet the high Constitutional bar” for removal proceedings, Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla have said rejecting the notices.

The orders on Monday refusing to admit the notice signed by 63 MPs in Rajya Sabha and 130 MPs in Lok Sabha said such a motion can be admitted only where there exists "credible material" disclosing a prima facie case and accepting such notices "based on administrative disagreements and political perceptions" would jeopardise its very independence the Constitution aims to safeguard.

The Opposition had sought removal of Kumar citing seven charges, including flawed appointment, partisan conduct, obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud, objections against Bihar SIR and subsequent nationwide exercise, contempt of Supreme Court directions and failure to maintain independence and Constitutional fidelity.

“...I find that allegations contained therein lack proof necessary to constitute misbehaviour which establishes a prima facie case for removal of CEC. 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,” the orders said.

It said the notice met the numerical requirement of the support of at least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, as even after discarding "certain incongruity in signatures of some signatory members" among the 63 who had signed.

Referring to the argument that Kumar’s appointment was flawed as the law is under challenge, it said it does not amount to any act of misbehaviour. The Supreme Court has also not provided any interim relief or stayed the Act that governs the appointment.

The orders rejected the charge that EC’s independence was impacted by Kumar’s appointment, saying it “appears to be couched in broad, generalised, and inferential terms, lacking any specificity and resting largely on the perception of a particular political formation”.

Emphasising that Kumar has no individual role in the proceedings of his appointments, it also said his previous stint in the Ministry of Home Affairs under Amit Shah “cannot be construed as indicative of bias”, as it is an “undisputed” fact that the overwhelming majority of CECs since 1950s have served in government.

On “graded response” of Kumar to top Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and BJP MP Anurag Thakur over their ‘vote chori’ claims, it said 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 orders also rejected the charge that Kumar deliberately obstructed investigations into electoral fraud by not providing documents to Karnataka CID and refusing to provide machine-readable electoral rolls, citing a Supreme Court order. He said persons aggrieved about Kumar’s action could have approached the court in such a scenario and that was the right course.

On Bihar SIR, it said the Supreme Court had extensively examined the matter and affirmed the competence of the Election Commission to carry out such an exercise. The observations of the SC aimed at enhancing procedural fairness cannot be “by any reasonable standard” be construed as indicative of misbehaviour.

“(The) mere fact that discharge of such constitutionally ordained functions are perceived as disadvantageous to a particular political spectrum is at most a matter of subjective opinion and cannot, in itself, furnish a valid ground for alleging misconduct,” it said referring to the charge on nationwide SIR.

The EC’s alleged failure to follow SC’s directions also cannot be construed as misbehaviour, it said.

"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 jeopardize its very independence the Constitution aims to safeguard," it said.

"In view thereof, the notice does not demonstrate "misbehaviour" as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution. Therefore, the prima-facie requirements for admitting this notice of Motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, have not been met," it said.