Several INDIA bloc parties on Wednesday criticised the “burial” of their notice to remove chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in both Houses of Parliament.
Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi said: “When accountability is adjourned indefinitely, then democracy itself stands impeached.... If the truth (is) on the side of the CEC or the EC is so strong, why fear scrutiny? If the system is so clear, why do the majority party and all those other supporters, why try and bury the motion unseen?”
He was flanked by Rajya Sabha members Derek O’Brien and Sagarika Ghose of the Trinamool Congress, AAP’s Sandeep Pathak, RJD’s Manoj Jha, representatives of the NCP (Sharad Pawar) and the DMK.
On March 12, a notice steered by Trinamool with the signatures of 193 Opposition MPs from both Houses accused Kumar of presiding over compromised appointments, partisan and discriminatory conduct, deliberate obstruction of investigations into electoral fraud, “mass disenfranchisement” under the SIR, non-compliance of Supreme Court directions, and failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity. The notices were rejected by both Houses of Parliament on Monday.
Rajya Sabha Chairperson C.P. Radhakrishnan said in his order: “After reviewing the notice of Motion, I find that allegations contained therein lack proofs necessary to constitute misbehaviour which establishes a prima facie case for removal of Chief Election Commissioner. 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. In view thereof, the notice does not demonstrate ‘misbehaviour’ as envisaged by Articles 324(5) and 124(4) of the Constitution.”
For the proceedings to begin, the notice needs to be admitted in both Houses, as it was submitted to both their presiding officers on the same day. Once that happens, a three-MP committee to examine the allegations is to be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
Singhvi said: “Common sense tells you that in every charge, if he is the presiding officer and he gives a view, then there can never be impeachment. It cannot be per se by definition an impeachment because it will not go from his stage to stage two — of the committee. Did the Constitution makers, did Babasaheb, whose anniversary is coming next week, ever imagine that he would put certain things in the hands of a single person to an extent where his accountability would be reduced to zero....
“Not having Parliament, not having a committee. You have therefore in conclusion done a mini trial. You have strangulated the adjudicator in the political process.”
On further plans, Singhvi told reporters: “But you can take it that within two days, we have given you a comprehensive response as far as the bar of public opinion is concerned.... But you can rest assured that whatever is permissible within the contours of law, Constitution, we will do.”