‘How can you decide without inquiry?’ Sibal questions rejection of motion against CEC

Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday criticised the rejection of opposition notices seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar , arguing that the decision was taken without any investigation into the allegations.

The controversy follows the decision of Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla , who rejected separate notices moved by opposition members to initiate removal proceedings against the CEC.

Speaking at a press conference in New Delhi, Sibal said the constitutional authorities had concluded that the allegations lacked merit without examining evidence or conducting any inquiry . He questioned how such a conclusion could be reached without verifying the claims.

The opposition had submitted the notices in March, listing seven charges against Kumar. These included allegations of partisan and discriminatory conduct , deliberate obstruction of investigations into electoral fraud , and claims of mass disenfranchisement of voters .

However, the presiding officers ruled that the allegations did not meet the constitutional threshold required for initiating removal proceedings . In his order, Radhakrishnan stated that the charges lacked sufficient proof to establish “ misbehaviour ”, which is required under Article 324(5) of the Constitution for the removal of an Election Commissioner.

He also observed that some of the allegations relate to matters that have already been decided or are currently under judicial review , and therefore do not establish a prima facie case for removal.

Sibal disagreed with the reasoning, arguing that determining whether misbehaviour exists should follow a proper investigation , rather than being dismissed at the outset.

He indicated that the opposition may now consider approaching the courts to challenge the rejection of the notices, though the final decision will be taken collectively.

The senior lawyer also pointed out that an impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav has remained pending for nearly 18 months , raising questions about consistency in handling such constitutional matters.