From Mallikarjun Kharge's lawn, 250 opposition MPs 'impeach' CEC Gyanesh Kumar

“Public impeachment” was a political demonstration, not a legally binding removal from office. The opposition staged a parliamentary-style proceeding to accuse CEC Gyanesh Kumar and spotlight alleged election-management failures. It also sought public accountability, including a call to try Kumar for treason.

On Saturday, about 250 opposition MPs gathered at Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge’s residence. Former Speaker Meira Kumar presided, Kharge tabled the resolution, and Rahul Gandhi concluded the debate. The gathering passed it by voice vote after three hours. Six charges alleged manipulated voter rolls, blocked new voters, software deletions, and sidelined commissioners.

A formal removal is different: the Constitution requires a parliamentary address backed by special majorities in both Houses, for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The article says opposition removal notices for Kumar were rejected by both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. Saturday’s vote therefore could not remove him; it mainly built political pressure and public scrutiny.

Gyanesh Kumar is India’s Chief Election Commissioner and chair of the Election Commission of India. Under Article 324, it supervises elections to Parliament, state legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President, while directing election officials and protecting voter rolls.

In the source article, opposition MPs held a symbolic “public impeachment” at Mallikarjun Kharge’s residence. They accused Kumar of colluding with the BJP, citing alleged voter deletions through SIR, software, and changes affecting new voters. These are political allegations, not findings established by the article.

The CEC leads a three-member commission, where decisions generally follow majority rule. The CEC has stronger protection than other commissioners: removal requires a process similar to removing a Supreme Court judge, while the President removes other commissioners on the CEC’s recommendation. The reported participation of about 250 opposition MPs makes the event political pressure, not immediate legal removal.

The event drew around 250 opposition MPs, making it a large symbolic assembly outside Parliament. It staged a mock parliamentary process to publicly challenge Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and present allegations against him.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, who hosted the gathering, formally tabled the resolution. Rahul Gandhi concluded the debate, while former Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar presided from the chair and put the motion to a voice vote. The assembled MPs approved it, ending roughly three hours of discussion with the slogan “vote chor gaddi chhod.”

This was a symbolic public action, not a completed legal removal. The opposition held it after its removal notices were rejected in both houses. The resolution accused Kumar of compromising election management, including alleged voter-roll and software-related wrongdoing. Its main significance was political: the INDIA bloc sought to build public pressure, while its claims remained allegations presented at the event.

The INDIA bloc alleged that election officials changed voter rolls in ways that could exclude legitimate voters. It described the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) as “manipulated,” accusing Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of helping a wider political conspiracy. These were political allegations made during the bloc’s public impeachment programme, not findings established in the article.

The bloc specifically claimed SIR could delete 14 crore voters and said 15% of 2024 voters had already been removed. It also alleged illegal changes to Form 6, the application used by new voters, to prevent eligible citizens from being added. Another charge involved software-based deletions, alongside accusations that Kumar ignored the other two election commissioners.

Opposition speakers applied these claims to upcoming state elections. SP’s Harendra Malik said SIR targeted “PDA voters” in Uttar Pradesh, while TMC’s Sagarika Ghose alleged 29 lakh Bengal voters had vanished. The article provides no independent verification, so the claims point to demanded scrutiny, not a settled account of what happened.

A Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a full rechecking of electoral rolls, not a routine update. Officials verify names, addresses, and eligibility. They add missing voters or remove people who died, moved, or could not be verified. Because the roll decides who receives a ballot, this process can expand or shrink voting access.

In the source article, INDIA bloc leaders accused CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s SIR of deleting 14 crore voters and changing Form 6 to block new registrations. Rahul Gandhi separately claimed 15% of 2024 voters had been deleted. These are political allegations, not independently established findings in the article. They show the mechanism: a disputed deletion or blocked application can prevent someone from voting.

Sagarika Ghose alleged that 29 lakh Bengal voters vanished, while Harendra Malik said the exercise targeted PDA voters in Uttar Pradesh. The impact depends on notice, evidence, and appeal opportunities. A careful SIR can correct rolls; an opaque one can wrongly exclude eligible citizens. Voters should check their names and challenge errors.

India’s Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed by a political gathering or ordinary resolution. Under Article 324(5), removal requires the President’s order after both Houses of Parliament pass addresses in the same session. The grounds must be proved misbehavior or incapacity. Each House must approve it by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.

That is different from Saturday’s event at Mallikarjun Kharge’s residence. About 250 opposition MPs passed a resolution by voice vote. Rahul Gandhi concluded the debate. Former Speaker Meira Kumar put it to a vote. It was not a vote in either parliamentary chamber, met neither required threshold, and did not create the President’s constitutional basis.

The programme therefore expressed opposition allegations about SIR and voter deletions, but did not remove Gyanesh Kumar. The article says opposition notices for his removal were rejected in both Houses. A genuine attempt requires a formal parliamentary inquiry before an address reaches the President.