The Congress on Monday demanded that Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar resign immediately, alleging that his ability to “execute G2’s illegal orders” has made him a “liability for the country”.
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh’s attack came a day after Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said any process that “disenfranchises” millions of Indian citizens is “intrinsically arbitrary” and amounts to a “negation” of the constitutional order.
“No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” Bhuyan said.
Sharing a video clip of Bhuyan’s remarks on X, Ramesh said, “Here is the bold Justice Ujjal Bhuyan speaking yesterday in NALSAR University in Hyderabad, where he exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. If he has any sense of shame, Gyanesh Kumar must quit right away.”
“His (Kumar’s) ability to execute G2’s illegal orders have now made him a liability for the country,” Ramesh said. Ramesh frequently uses the term “G2” to refer to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
The Congress had on Sunday also cited Bhuyan’s remarks on the right to vote and claimed that they conclusively established that the CEC had violated the Constitution “in letter and spirit”.
“Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, has been an outspoken champion of environmental protection,” Ramesh had said on Sunday evening.
“Now the courageous jurist has forcefully expressed his view that the right to vote is very much part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This conclusively proves that the CEC -- constitutional functionary himself -- has violated the Constitution itself both in letter and spirit,” he had said.
“Justice Bhuyan has said much more and has exposed the CEC lock, stock and barrel. Gyanesh Kumar has simply lost all moral right to continue in office,” Ramesh had asserted.
The Congress’ attack on the CEC comes days after The Indian Express reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected on record at least 14 times over the past 10 months to decisions and orders concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process that they said were issued without their knowledge or recommendation.
The Election Commission, facing scrutiny over the red flags raised by the two commissioners, has maintained that differing views and observations are part of deliberations in any institution and that all its orders carry full legal sanction and follow established statutory procedures.
Justice Bhuyan, who delivered the valedictory address at the 19th Justice Bodh Raj Sawhney Memorial Moot Court Competition at NALSAR University of Law, said the Constitution does not provide for two classes of citizens -- those with voting rights and those without them.
He said any process that leads to the wholesale disenfranchisement of Indian citizens, effectively making them citizens without voting rights, would violate Articles 326 and 14 of the Constitution.
“If any process results in disenfranchising millions and millions of Indian citizens, making them second-class citizens in their own country in the sense of being citizens without a voting right, such a process is intrinsically arbitrary. No amount of whataboutery can justify it,” he said.
“It strikes at the very heart of the Constitution, and I would go to the extent of saying that it is a negation of the Constitutional order which we have adopted based on the Constitution of India,” he said.
Bhuyan said the right to vote is intertwined with India’s long struggle against foreign rule and is a manifestation of the freedom achieved after years of struggle and sacrifice. He said Article 326 “cannot be tinkered with at all”.
“No authority can do it; no court can endorse it or condone it. No one is above the Constitution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also said the right to vote, or the right to be a voter, is not merely a statutory right flowing from parliamentary legislation such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, but a constitutional right forming a distinct part of democracy itself and positioned within the framework of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Citing a Supreme Court order, he said the apex court had observed that a citizen’s right to vote cannot be divorced or separated from the mandate of Article 326.
(With inputs from PTI)