Impeachment Motion
By Poonam I Kaushish
Phew! Its electioneering season again as Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala go to polls next month with Parties rolling out a perfect electoral cake to the strains of ‘Vote For Me’ to cream the electorate. Amidst this poll nautanki 193 MPs moved an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, no matter Lok Sabha rejected a no-confidence motion against Speaker Birla for his failure to ensure the House’s impartial functioning last week.
They cite “partisan and discriminatory conduct,” “vote theft,” “deliberate obstruction of investigation of electoral fraud” and “mass disenfranchisement of Dalits, underprivileged, and Muslim voters” through Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Clearly, Opposition has taken an extreme step to draw attention to the “less-than-fair” conduct of the Election Commission led by Kumar. Yet it lacks numerical strength in Parliament and it is a foregone conclusion the impeachment motion will fail and hence will have little moral or psychological impact on the CEC. The motion’s defeat would be seen as his victory and an implicit exoneration of his alleged wrongdoing.
However, some see merit in Opposition’s grievances. The EC has acted in ways that invite accusations of political bias. It has treated Opposition with disrespect and its decisions have often handed advantage to BJP-led NDA. Be it SIR’s conduct in Bihar over its pace and timing, setting off a scramble for hard-to-get documents and casting burden of proof on vulnerable voters in an exercise that morphed into a test of citizenship.
Thankfully, Supreme Court stepped in, to nudge EC towards greater transparency. Amid ongoing SIR in West Bengal, its intervention tamped down escalating confrontation between Mamata’s TMC Government and EC. The Chief Minister called off her sit-in after the Court ordered formation of tribunals to hear appeals against exclusion from voter lists.
Others argue it is misguided to believe Opposition should refrain from raising the issue because it lacks numbers to succeed as it is aware it does not command numbers required. But does that mean it should refrain from exercising its democratic right to expose what it considers institutional wrongdoing?
Is it committing political suicide? No, as the motion is intended to register a formal protest against what Opposition describes as CEC’s bias and partisan conduct. What he is doing in the name of ensuring fair, transparent, and credible implementation of SIR exercise reflects a broader political strategy aimed at weakening the Opposition. Besides, what alternative mechanism is available?
Since SIR process began, Opposition has repeatedly pointed to what it considers serious flaws in its implementation. Yet despite judicial scrutiny and repeated protests, the Commission has continued with the exercise.
Adding, Apex court raised questions about EC’s transparency and integrity of its actions and ordered a judicial review of voter lists in West Bengal, appointing serving and retired High Court judges to examine disputed applications. It observed EC had issued “interpretative circulars” regarding voter rolls, suggesting either misinterpretation of law or a deliberate attempt to obscure procedural failures. Hence, its impeachment motion is justified.
Also, Parliament is a political arena where politicians assemble to debate and contest policies — not to engage in ritualistic harmony. Dismissing Parliamentary protest as “political” is little more than an attempt to delegitimise dissent. Similarly, describing the motion as an “extreme step” effectively denies Opposition legitimate avenues of accountability.
But more important, Opposition needs to ask itself whether by rushing to use an instrument of last resort to score only an emblematic point is correct. Given it is not a step towards resolution of a political problem, but a disquieting symptom. It undermines itself, while risking a hardening of confrontation with a high-ranking Constitutional authority.
BJP counters by alleging the move is purely political and meant to create pressure before elections, especially in West Bengal. They argue there is no concrete evidence of misconduct, its mere political theatre of optics and politicization of an independent Constitutional office which could undermine public trust in elections.
Under the Constitution, CEC’s removal requires two-thirds majority in both Parliament Houses. Given NDA’s Parliamentary strength, the motion is obviously going to be defeated. Nevertheless, this is the first time in independent India that a formal notice seeking removal of a sitting CEC has been introduced. The move represents a high-profile attempt to challenge the Government on the issue of institutional integrity.
Even a failed impeachment motion can carry significant moral and reputational consequences. The process itself brings allegations of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” into public record. Parliamentary debates, investigations and formal charges create a documented history that may shape the long-term reputation of the office-holder.
Either way the impeachment motion is a serious and worrying signal for democratic institutions. The office belongs to the Election Commission which is supposed to be independent and politically neutral. If impeachment is attempted for political disagreements, it could weaken the independence of the Commission.
Political conflict around the CEC may make citizens question whether elections are free and fair. If Parties start using impeachment threats frequently, Constitutional offices could become political battlegrounds, similar to what sometimes happens with Governors or Speakers.
Till date, the Election Commission is widely seen as fearless and above politics. The CEC’s impeachment motion could weaken its reputation and affect how independent the institution appears. As Kumar earns the ignominy of being the first CEC to be impeached it shows how extreme, drastic and rare such a step is, raising concerns about the health of democratic institutions.
All in all, impeachment talk is less about one individual and more about a broader trust deficit between Opposition Parties and Election Commission. Sadly, our leaders ignore a basic premise: Even when impeachment fails to secure removal, the controversy and process will ensure that his conduct would leave a lasting political and historical imprint and remain part of Parliament’s historical record.
Worse, it risks weakening the credibility of democratic institutions as accountability and institutional stability must both be balanced. Amid the highly polarization of politics, then, and in spite of an Executive that weaponises its majority, there are countervailing forces, checks and balances.
The Opposition needs to make its way by appealing to and widening these spaces from within, strategically and imaginatively instead of pulling CEC, Governors, Courts etc into a political conflict. No-confidence and impeachment motions are a cop-out, and an abdication of that responsibility. Remember, free and fair elections are the foundation of our democratic system. If elections lose credibility, legitimacy of Governments also weakens. — INFA