Former civil servants, activists and citizens served a “People’s Notice of Impeachment” demanding Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation and removal.
The notice alleged violations involving ECI functioning, Form 6, ECINET and the Special Intensive Revision.
It also alleged political partisanship and wilful breach of duty, citing Article 324(5) and Section 32(1).
A delegation of former civil servants, activists and concerned citizens on Monday served a “People’s Notice of Impeachment” on Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, demanding his resignation and removal from office.
Yogendra Yadav, who was part of the delegation, announced the move in a post on X. He said the delegation included former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, former Union Home Secretary G K Pillai, former Union secretary Amitabha Pandey, former ambassador Ashok Sharma, former Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau Yashovardhan Azad, and other former civil servants and activists.
The notice, addressed to Kumar at Nirvachan Sadan in New Delhi, accused him of “wilful disregard of law and constitutional duty, abuse of authority” and conduct that it said was “destructive of the integrity of India’s electoral democracy”.
Six Charges Against Gyanesh Kumar
The notice cited Article 324(5) of the Constitution, which protects the Chief Election Commissioner from removal except on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
The first charge alleged that Kumar had undermined the collective functioning of the Election Commission of India by exercising powers without placing matters before the Commission for proper consideration and decision. It referred to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and alleged that two Election Commissioners had recorded objections to decisions taken without their knowledge.
The second charge concerned the alleged unauthorised alteration of statutory Form 6. The notice alleged that citizens whose names had been excluded from electoral rolls were required to make a declaration that they were applying for inclusion for the first time.
The third charge alleged that the deployment of ECINET undermined or displaced the statutory role of Electoral Registration Officers in additions, deletions and corrections to electoral rolls.
The fourth charge concerned SIR. The notice alleged that the exercise was undertaken without adequate preparation, consultation, training or effective mechanisms for speedy correction of wrongful exclusions. It claimed that 13.3 crore names had been deleted from pre-SIR rolls and alleged that the deletions disproportionately affected women, the poor, migrants, minorities and the elderly.
Allegations Of Partisanship
The fifth charge alleged that Kumar’s conduct had created an apprehension of political partisanship and compromised the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission.
The sixth charge cited Section 32(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and alleged a pattern of wilful breach of official duty in the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
The notice concluded that the allegations constituted “proved misbehaviour” under Article 324(5) and demanded Kumar’s removal from the office of Chief Election Commissioner.
