CEC Acting Under ‘Executive’s Thumb’, Says Opposition’s Notice Seeking Gyanesh Kumar’s Removal

New Delhi : The notices moved by the opposition MPs in Parliament seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have accused him of “acting under the thumb of the executive”, besides blaming him for “mass disenfranchisement” through the SIR exercise, and raising questions on his appointment.
The notices submitted in the two Houses of Parliament on March 12 list seven charges against the chief election commissioner (CEC) as grounds of “proved misbehaviour”, calling for his removal.
The opposition MPs, 130 in the Lok Sabha and 63 in the Rajya Sabha, have also sought a motion to remove the CEC.
Asked about the notices, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha leader Derek O’Brien said they are waiting for action on them.
“If the notices are not taken up by the Union government, doubts will be raised about a tacit understanding between the executive and the CEC,” said O’Brien.
The notices termed maintaining a level playing field “the heart and soul of electoral democracy”, and part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Among the charges of “proved misbehaviour”, the Opposition accused the CEC of “failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity”, and acting under the “thumb of the executive”.
The Opposition’s charges include the process of Kumar’s appointment as the CEC, his “partisan” press conference on August 17, 2025, targeting Rahul Gandhi, “discriminatory treatment” of Opposition and ruling party members, “obstruction” of investigations, refusal to provide “transparency tools”, and the execution of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise “in alignment with the ruling party’s political objectives”.
“The ECI’s stance on the citizenship verification aspect of the SIR, i.e., ascertaining the citizenship status of voters through electoral roll revision, is in direct alignment with the Union home minister’s stated position that an NRC (National Register of Citizens) exercise would be conducted across India.
“The CEC has effectively converted the ECI from a neutral electoral body into an instrument executing the executive’s political agenda. He also converted it from an impartial election conducting institution into a citizenship determination tribunal,” the Opposition alleged.
It also alleged that the SIR exercise in Bihar, announced just five months ahead of the Assembly polls last year, imposed “exclusionary documentation requirements” that had the effect of “systematically disenfranchising” the most vulnerable sections of society.
The Opposition referred to 65 lakh voters “excluded” in Bihar, a “staggering figure representing a significant proportion of the state’s electorate”, maintaining that the exercise played a decisive role in the NDA’s victory in the Assembly polls, with the Opposition “wiped out”.
According to the notices, the CEC’s “sudden decisions to start SIR with rocket-like alacrity in very large states slated for polls within 2-3 months, a mulish obstinacy to reconsider timelines, complete insensitivity to genuine human sufferings and deliberate ignorance of every plea of the opposition parties unless courts were approached and specific directions issued reflected the inherently biased mindset and approach of Gyanesh Kumar”.
The notices claimed that the “Bihar model” was replicated in other states, and in West Bengal, the draft electoral rolls revealed the deletion of approximately 58 lakh names from an initial electorate of 7.66 crore, while over 60 lakh voters remain in the “under adjudication” category, leaving their voting status uncertain just weeks before the Assembly elections.
“The SIR process has been characterised by the Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal and by several opposition parties as ‘NRC through backdoor’, imposing documentation burdens that disproportionately affect Hindu refugees from Bangladesh, including the Matua community, as well as Dalits, OBCs, Adivasis, and minorities,” the notices said.
The charges also referred to the CEC’s selection process, saying it’s the “subject of a pending constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court”.
They also mentioned Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s dissent in February 2025 when Kumar was picked for the post.
“The haste with which the appointment was effectuated at midnight, despite the pendency of a Supreme Court hearing on the very law governing the appointment, demonstrates a deliberate intent by the executive to install a person of its choosing before the court could potentially intervene and the willingness of Gyanesh Kumar to participate in such a process,” they alleged.
The notices also referred to the CEC’s public ultimatum to Gandhi during an August 2025 press conference, when amid allegations of electoral fraud in the Mahadevapura Assembly constituency in Karnataka during the 2024 general elections, Kumar asked Gandhi to either apologise or back his claims with a signed affidavit as required under electoral rules.
The CEC did not demand an affidavit when BJP leader Anurag Thakur alleged electoral fraud in Rae Bareli, the Opposition claimed.
The opposition leaders called this a “discriminatory response of the CEC”, and said it “constitutes unambiguous and unequivocal partisan misbehaviour.” They also accused the CEC of “deliberate obstruction of justice”, and referred to the allegations of voter list fraud at Aland in Karnataka, “refusal to provide machine-readable voter lists”, “refusal to release CCTV footage from polling booths”, and alleged that the EC has become an opaque and unaccountable institution.
The process to remove the CEC is similar to that for the removal of a Supreme Court or a high court judge, meaning an impeachment can be effected only on the ground of “proven misbehaviour or incapacity”.
If the motion is admitted in both Houses, a committee would be constituted jointly by the Lok Sabha speaker and the Rajya Sabha chairman, comprising the chief justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts, and a “distinguished jurist”.
The committee proceedings are like any court proceeding where witnesses and the accused are cross-examined.
The CEC, too, will get a chance to speak before the committee.
According to the rules, once the committee submits its report, it will be tabled in the House, and discussions will commence for impeachment.
The motion will have to be passed by both Houses.
When the House discusses the motion, Kumar will have the right to defend himself standing at the entrance of the House chamber. (Agencies)