Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
According to senior sources, leaders of several opposition parties are in talks and at least five senior MPs from different parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, Samajwadi Party and DMK, are trying to draft a fresh manifesto to initiate impeachment proceedings.
However, the source added that it has not yet been decided which House the notification will be moved to or whether it will be implemented in both Houses as was the case last time.
The source said opposition leaders, who were enjoying the defeat of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha on Friday, were aiming to get more MPs’ signatures on the declaration and were aiming to get at least 200 MPs to sign it.
Also read | PM Modi criticizes opposition over defeat of women’s quota bill
“We want to make a statement. First, we need to prove that last time’s figure was underestimated,” the source added.
The opposition, in its earlier announcements, had accused CEC Kumar of “failing to protect independence and adherence to the constitution” and “acting under the thumb of the executive”. The declarations leveled sweeping accusations against the CEC, alleging “proven misconduct” on the grounds of compromised and executive-influenced appointments, partisan operation such as the alleged “cascaded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders, obstruction of election fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through rejection. Sharing data and materials.
They also accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement through Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, refusing or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directives, and undermining the independence of the Election Commission by acting in concert with the political executive.
Also read | ‘Crocodile tears’, ‘election speech’: Opposition’s barbs against the Prime Minister
But in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Speaker C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, arguing that even assuming the allegations were true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misconduct” required for dismissal.
Matters related to the appointment or previous government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of intentional abuse of power; Actions such as data sharing or revision of voter rolls fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also emphasized that many of the issues raised were speculative, politically interpretive or based on court decision, and that dismissals could not be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences, but required clear, specific and provable misconduct, which was not found in this case.
