Opposition seeks CEC Gyanesh Kumar's removal after report of 14 EC objections

Opposition parties on Wednesday demanded the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, after a newspaper report said two of the three Election Commissioners had recorded formal objections at least 14 times in the past ten months over decisions they said were taken without their knowledge.

The report, published by The Indian Express, said Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded the objections in internal notes. According to the report, the two Commissioners stated that major decisions were being taken in the name of the full Election Commission, and described several of them as "unauthorised and illegal".

The Election Commission responded the same day, saying that all its actions had been carried out in accordance with the law and with the instructions of the Commission. It said that highlighting certain internal notes or observations spread over ten months, while overlooking the much larger body of approvals, decisions, instructions and initiatives, presented only "one part of the picture".

Separately, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) said it had cancelled its programmes scheduled for Thursday and that its leadership would address a press conference in Delhi at noon on what it described as the "Hijacking of India's Democracy".

The row touches on how the poll body is constituted and how its members are expected to function together. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the superintendence, direction and control of elections vests in the Election Commission, which consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners. Decisions of the Commission are ordinarily taken collectively, and differences among members, when recorded, normally remain part of internal files rather than the public record.

The Constitution also provides distinct removal procedures. The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a judge of the Supreme Court, that is, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, through a process requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Other Election Commissioners can be removed by the President, but only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

This means a demand for the CEC's removal cannot be given effect by the government acting alone; it would require a parliamentary process. No such process has been initiated, and neither the Commission nor the government has announced a response to the Opposition's demand.

The reported dissent has emerged amid continuing public discussion about the Commission's conduct of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process that has drawn scrutiny from political parties and commentators.

Officials have not disputed that notes of dissent exist; the Commission's objection is to the manner in which they have been presented. What is not yet in the public record includes the full text of the internal notes, the specific decisions to which they relate, and whether the objections were placed before the Commission at the time. Until these are known, both the reported notes and the Commission's reply are best read as contested accounts from the parties involved, rather than findings of an independent inquiry.

The Election Commission's standing rests on public confidence in its impartiality. Questions raised about its internal decision-making are therefore likely to remain in public debate in the weeks ahead, whether or not the demand for the CEC's removal advances.