Any fresh opposition bid to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar would undergo scrutiny under parliamentary rules, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla said on Thursday, as protests demanding the poll chief’s resignation continued.
His remarks came after two opposition attempts to oust Kumar. Notices in the first attempt were rejected in both Houses, while those submitted in the second remained pending in the Rajya Sabha.
"If any fresh notice comes, we will see and examine it accordingly under rules and procedures," Birla told a press conference here, responding to a question on a possible impeachment motion against the CEC.
There have been protests in the last fortnight in different parts of India seeking the resignation of Kumar for alleged irregularities while carrying out the special intensive revision of voters list.
According to the Constitution and law on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners, a CEC can only be removed by Parliament the way a sitting Supreme Court judge can be impeached.
The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, also says the CEC or an Election Commissioner may resign at any time by submitting in writing to the President.
According to Article 124, which deals with the Supreme Court, a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 says that once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought.
The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a "distinguished jurist".
At the conclusion of the investigation, the committee shall submit its report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to the Chairman, or where the Committee has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, to both of them, stating therein its findings on each of the charges separately with such observations on the whole case as it thinks fit.
The Speaker or the Chairman, or, where the Committee has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, both of them, shall cause the report submitted under sub-section (2) to be laid, as soon as may be, respectively before the House of the People and the Council of States.
If the report of the committee contains a finding that the Judge is not guilty of any misbehaviour or does not suffer from any incapacity, then, no further steps shall be taken in either house of Parliament in relation to the report and the motion pending in the house or the houses of Parliament shall not be proceeded with.
If the report of the committee contains a finding that the judge is guilty of any misbehaviour or suffers from any incapacity, then, the motion together with the report of the committee, be taken up for consideration by the House or the Houses of Parliament in which it is pending.
Also Read
If the motion is adopted by each House of Parliament in accordance with the provisions of Article 124 or, as the case may be, in accordance with the clause read with Article 218 of the Constitution, then, the misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge shall be deemed to have been proved and an address praying for the removal of the Judge shall be presented in the prescribed manner to the President by each House of Parliament in the same session in which the motion has been adopted.
The opposition protests against Kumar intensified after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders on the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.