A group of former senior civil servants, activists and citizens on Monday issued what it called a “People’s Notice of Impeachment” against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing him of “proved misbehaviour” and demanding that he resign from office.
The delegation included former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, former Union Home Secretary G K Pillai, former Union secretary Amitabha Pandey, former ambassador Ashok Sharma and former Intelligence Bureau Special Director and Chief Information Commissioner Yashovardhan Azad. Activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Yogendra Yadav were also among those associated with the initiative.
The allegations have been made by the delegation and do not constitute a judicial or parliamentary finding against the CEC. The group itself acknowledged that its “people’s impeachment” exercise has no independent legal force under the constitutional process governing removal of a Chief Election Commissioner.
Six charges listed
The four-page notice accused Kumar of a “sustained pattern” of disregard for law and constitutional duty and listed six broad charges. These concerned the alleged subversion of the Election Commission’s collective functioning, unauthorised alteration of statutory Form 6, centralisation of electoral-roll administration through ECINET, alleged mass disenfranchisement during the Special Intensive Revision, conduct allegedly incompatible with institutional independence and impartiality, and purported breaches of statutory duty.
The delegation invoked Article 324(5) of the Constitution, under which the Chief Election Commissioner can be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge. The constitutional standard is “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
The group argued that the six allegations, taken together, met the threshold of “proved misbehaviour”. That assertion represents the delegation’s case against Kumar and has not been established through the constitutional removal process.
EC functioning questioned
The first charge concerned the collective functioning of the Election Commission. The delegation alleged that Kumar had exercised powers vested in the poll panel without adequately placing important matters before the full Commission for consideration and decision.
It cited the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and alleged that the exercise proceeded without adequate discussion, consultation, rule-making or properly recorded proceedings.
The notice also referred to reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections over certain decisions allegedly taken without their knowledge. The Election Commission has maintained in the wider controversy that differences and observations among commissioners form part of institutional deliberations and that its decisions carry the required legal authority.
Form 6 changes cited
The second charge centred on the controversy over Form 6, the statutory form used for inclusion of names in electoral rolls.
The delegation alleged that the form had been altered without lawful authority during the SIR process. It questioned the additional declaration requiring applicants to indicate whether they or their parents or grandparents appeared in the electoral roll used as the reference for the revision.
The group also argued that voters whose names had previously appeared on electoral rolls but were subsequently excluded could effectively be required to make a declaration associated with seeking inclusion, creating what it described as an improper situation for genuine electors trying to restore their names.
The controversy over Form 6 has separately reached the Supreme Court. During proceedings, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made clear that the court had not approved a modified Form 6, bringing additional scrutiny to the process through which the declaration was introduced.
ECINET under scrutiny
The third charge related to ECINET, the Election Commission’s digital platform for electoral-roll management. The delegation alleged that the system had been deployed in a manner that undermined or displaced the statutory authority of Electoral Registration Officers.
Under electoral law, EROs perform a central role in deciding additions, deletions and corrections to electoral rolls. The group argued that a technology platform could not lawfully replace or dilute powers entrusted to these statutory officers.
The Election Commission has constituted a committee headed by a senior Deputy Election Commissioner, with an independent technology expert, to examine ECINET’s compliance with applicable Acts and rules.
The delegation cited that review to question whether the system had been subjected to sufficient legal scrutiny before its deployment. The existence of a review, however, does not by itself establish that ECINET violated electoral law.
SIR deletions challenged
The fourth and one of the most serious allegations concerned what the group described as “unprecedented mass disenfranchisement” during the SIR.
The delegation alleged that the revision was undertaken without sufficient preparation, consultation, training and mechanisms to quickly restore eligible voters who had been wrongfully excluded.
It further claimed that the burden of the exercise had fallen disproportionately on vulnerable sections, including women, poorer citizens, migrant workers, minorities and elderly voters.
The Election Commission has consistently maintained that revision of electoral rolls is intended to ensure that all eligible citizens are included while removing entries relating to deceased, permanently shifted, duplicate or otherwise ineligible persons. Questions surrounding the scale and procedure of deletions have nevertheless become a major legal and political controversy.
Impartiality allegation
The fifth charge accused Kumar of conduct that the delegation said was incompatible with the independence and impartiality expected of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The group cited his public interventions involving opposition leaders, statements made during controversies surrounding SIR and what it described as a broader pattern of decisions that had created an apprehension of political partisanship.
These are allegations and assessments made by the delegation. They do not amount to an established finding that the CEC acted on behalf of or in favour of any political party.
Statutory duty charge
The sixth charge alleged repeated breaches of statutory duty in connection with electoral-roll preparation and revision.
The notice referred to Section 32(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which deals with breach of official duty by electoral officials in connection with the preparation or revision of electoral rolls.
The group linked this allegation to the Form 6 controversy, the use of ECINET, the role of EROs and alleged failures to disclose or correct irregularities. It argued that these matters together disclosed a pattern of wilful breach rather than isolated administrative errors.
Whether any of those actions legally constitute a breach of statutory duty would require determination by the competent legal or constitutional authority.
Delegation stopped from reaching EC
Members of the delegation said they had intended to personally deliver the notice at the Election Commission headquarters at Nirvachan Sadan but were prevented from reaching the building because roads leading to it had been barricaded.
Bhardwaj criticised the restrictions, while Jung said the former officials had decided to speak publicly because they believed issues involving electoral administration had become serious enough to warrant intervention.
Pillai questioned the burden being placed on ordinary citizens during intensive electoral-roll verification, arguing that the process should focus on identifying ineligible entries without making the overwhelming majority of legitimate voters repeatedly establish their credentials.
Not a formal impeachment process
Despite its title, the document issued on Monday does not itself begin the constitutional process for removing the Chief Election Commissioner. Azad acknowledged that the “people’s impeachment” initiative did not carry legal sanctity, saying it was intended instead to demonstrate wider public concern over the functioning of the poll body.
A CEC enjoys substantial constitutional protection from removal precisely to safeguard the independence of the Election Commission. Removal requires the stringent process applicable to a Supreme Court judge and cannot be accomplished through a notice issued by private citizens, former officials or political groups.
Monday’s initiative is therefore best understood as a public demand for Kumar’s resignation and for the constitutional authorities to examine the allegations against him. The six charges remain allegations made by the delegation, and the notice does not establish “proved misbehaviour” in the constitutional sense.