Opposition moves fresh bid to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Opposition MPs submitted a fresh Rajya Sabha notice seeking removal of Gyanesh Kumar, alleging biased enforcement of the Model Code, but earlier attempts were rejected for not meeting the constitutional threshold for removal

New Delhi: Opposition parties on Friday submitted a fresh notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking a motion for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said. The fresh charges against the CEC include “continued partisan asymmetry in the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct”.

The opposition has accused the poll panel of not acting on complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “address to the nation” on April 18, ahead of assembly elections in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu.
Referring to concerns raised by various opposition parties, the notice said, “As on the date of this notice, Gyanesh Kumar has issued no show-cause notice, no advisory, and no public response to any of the said complaints.” According to sources, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh and TMC leader Sagarika Ghose submitted the notice to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General.

---

The notice was signed by 73 Rajya Sabha MPs, while the requirement is 50 signatures. Members of opposition parties such as the Congress, TMC, SP, DMK, Left parties, Shiv Sena (UBT), NCP (SP), RJD, IUML and “like -minded” parties have signed the notice, sources said.

The move comes days after similar notices submitted by opposition MPs in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were rejected by the respective presiding officers. It was the first time that a notice seeking the removal of a CEC was submitted in Parliament.

In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of “failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity” and of acting under the “thumb of the executive”.

However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan had rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for his removal.