Opposition Readies Impeachment Motion Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Opposition parties plan to move an impeachment notice against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in both Houses of Parliament, with the Congress coordinating the effort and a fresh submission expected within two weeks. The plan follows an Indian Express report that two election commissioners repeatedly objected to decisions taken under the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Sources close to the Congress told ANI that a fresh notice is being drafted and will be vetted by legal experts before submission in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. This is the opposition's third attempt to move a motion for Kumar's removal. The first notice was rejected in both Houses. A second notice moved by 73 opposition MPs on April 24 remains pending in the Rajya Sabha. The new report has prompted a fresh one. INDIA bloc allies are working together on the fresh notice.

The trigger is an Indian Express story, summarised by LiveMint, which reported that two of the three Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, raised questions about SIR decisions at least 14 times over 10 months. The objections covered issues related to the Special Intensive Revision rollout.

Special Intensive Revision allows additions, deletions and corrections at a scale that can reshape a constituency's electorate. The objections were made over ten months, suggesting a recurring concern rather than a one-off procedural slip. That is the substantive thread the opposition is pulling.

The Congress has moved beyond Parliament. State units have been asked to march to election commission offices on September 25; district committees will hold similar marches to collectorates on September 28. Congress general secretary K C Venugopal linked the protests directly to the report, saying Rahul Gandhi has been exposing a 'massive vote chori' exercise spearheaded by a 'BJP-controlled CEC'. Venugopal said Kumar must be removed and face an independent review of all decisions made under him.

After the massive revelations on Wednesday, Kumar's 'treason' is out in the open and he must be arrested for his anti-national acts against our democracy.

That is a political escalation, not a legal finding.

The Election Commission is the constitutional authority that administers elections for Parliament, state legislatures, the President and the Vice President. Removal of the CEC requires a special majority in both Houses. That arithmetic is formidable for any opposition bloc, and the Congress knows it.

The campaign is not confined to political parties. Citizens for Justice and Peace, a civil-liberties group, gave Kumar 48 hours to resign on September 24, according to India Today. That deadline compresses the constitutional process into a demand for executive resignation, which is a different remedy from impeachment and has no basis in election law.

The Election Commission's internal structure is meant for deliberation. Three members do not have to agree on every decision, and dissenting notes are part of the recorded process. The Indian Express report says two commissioners objected 14 times. That can be read as friction or as the system working. The opposition has chosen the first reading, and the Congress has moved quickly to convert the report into an impeachment campaign.

For the ordinary voter, the fight matters because the Election Commission signs off on electoral rolls, vote counting, and the legitimacy of results. A large-scale revision of rolls can alter which voters are eligible, where they are assigned, and how constituencies are shaped. If two commissioners repeatedly objected to how that revision was being implemented, the substantive question is not whether the process was noisy, but whether the objections changed anything.

The state-level protests also stretch the demand beyond the Chief Election Commissioner. State election commission offices handle local-body polls, while Kumar's office handles national and state assembly elections. Marching to both signals a broad message against the poll architecture, not a targeted legal remedy. For the Congress, mobilisation ahead of the parliamentary admissibility fight keeps the issue alive in the street.

The demand for Kumar's immediate arrest is legally detached from the impeachment route. Arrest is an executive action; removal through impeachment is a parliamentary process. Conflating the two weakens the opposition's claim that this is a sober constitutional intervention.

The history of removal attempts against election commissioners is thin, which is why the opposition's third notice matters more than the first two. An impeachment motion under the Constitution is a parliamentary weapon, not a routine no-confidence vote. It needs support beyond the opposition benches. If the Congress moves the notice without the numbers, it becomes a symbolic exercise, but that symbolism itself shapes public perception of the Election Commission.

The practical takeaway for voters is not a verdict on Kumar's record, but a reminder that election administration is only as strong as its insulation from the political cycle. The Commission has functioned across governments because its decisions were accepted, even when they were inconvenient. Once internal disagreements become weapons in an impeachment campaign, the cost is borne by the institution's long-term authority. The test now is whether Parliament weighs removal on evidence rather than on rhetoric. That is the only route the Constitution allows, and it is a high one.