‘It’s about political debate, not the recall process’: Federal Chamber president rejects opposition notice to recall Central Electoral Commission

New Delhi: Union Congress Chairman CP Radhakrishnan has rejected the notice of motion moved by the opposition to remove Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In his order dismissing the notice, Radhakrishnan said that while the charges were relevant to the political debate, prima facie they did not meet the strict requirements of the Constitution for deportation proceedings.“Some of the charges relate to matters that have already been decided or are currently under judicial review. While the charges are relevant to the political debate, on their face they do not meet the strict requirements of the constitution for deportation proceedings,” he said.“Therefore, the prima facie requirements for admission of the notice of motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 have not been satisfied. Against this background, having regard to the notice of motion and the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, I am firmly of the view that the notice of motion does not merit admission. Therefore, I refuse to acknowledge Motion’s notification,” he added.Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla on Monday dismissed separate notices by the opposition seeking the removal of Kumar.In March this year, the opposition submitted a notice against the Chief Election Commissioner to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, citing seven allegations. These include alleged “partisan and discriminatory conduct in office,” “intentional obstruction of election fraud investigations” and “massive disenfranchisement.”The notices were signed by opposition parties including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, RJD and Left parties, all part of India’s opposition bloc, as well as the Aam Aadmi Party, which is no longer officially part of the alliance. Several independent MPs also signed the notice.Radhakrishnan gave a detailed rebuttal of every accusation leveled against Janesh Kumar by the opposition in his order. Regarding the first allegation on the validity of Kumar’s appointment, Radhakrishnan noted, “Even if found to be correct, these allegations do not amount to any wrongdoing on the part of the Chief Election Commissioner.” He dismissed a second allegation of electoral roll irregularities, saying they did not amount to “improper conduct”. Refuting the third and fourth charges of obstructing the Bihar election fraud investigation and SIR, he said compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions and the ongoing judicial review could rule out any allegation of wrongdoing. Regarding the fifth allegation of SIR’s nationwide expansion, he called the claims “speculative and speculative” and insufficient to prove wrongdoing. On the issue of contempt of court or non-compliance with Supreme Court orders, he said such matters are dealt with through the contempt jurisdiction of the court. Finally, regarding the seventh allegation of impairment of independence, he said, “In the absence of specific details or substantiating evidence of a departure from constitutional or statutory obligations, this assertion fails on its face to prove ‘wrongdoing.'”