The Opposition parties are preparing to initiate a fresh move seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, sources said.
Leaders from multiple Opposition parties are currently in discussions, with at least five senior Members of Parliament from parties including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK involved in drafting a new notice for initiating removal proceedings.
Sources said it has not yet been decided whether the notice will be introduced in the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, or in both Houses simultaneously, as was attempted earlier.
Encouraged by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha on Friday, Opposition leaders are seeking to mobilise broader support. They are aiming to secure the signatures of at least 200 MPs for the fresh notice.
In their earlier notices, Opposition parties had accused the CEC of failing to uphold independence and constitutional propriety, alleging that he acted under executive influence.
The charges included claims of partisan functioning, obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and lack of transparency in sharing election-related data.
The notices also alleged that the Commission’s actions led to disenfranchisement through Special Intensive Revision exercises in States such as Bihar, and that there was non-compliance or delay in adhering to Supreme Court directions.
However, both Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman CP Radhakrishnan rejected the notices.
In their rulings, they held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not meet the constitutional threshold of “proved misbehaviour” required for the removal of a Chief Election Commissioner.
They observed that concerns related to appointment processes or prior government service do not constitute misconduct, and that differences over administrative decisions or public statements lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority. They further noted that matters such as data sharing and electoral roll revisions fall within the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission and remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
The presiding officers also emphasised that removal proceedings cannot be based on political disagreement or perceived consequences, but must rest on clear, specific, and demonstrable misconduct, a standard they concluded had not been met in the present case.
(With inputs from PTI)