Opposition plans fresh motion to remove CEC Gyanesh Kumar

The opposition parties are preparing to move a fresh motion in Parliament seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, after their earlier attempt was rejected, news agency PTI reported, citing sources.

The leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties, including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK, are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings. It has not yet been decided which House the notice will be moved in, or whether it will be introduced in both Houses as was done earlier.

The renewed push comes days after the Opposition defeated the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha. Leaders are now aiming to gather more support and are looking at securing at least 200 MPs’ signatures this time.

"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," a leader was quoted as saying. 

Earlier motion rejected

On March 12, 63 Rajya Sabha members and 130 Lok Sabha members had moved a motion seeking Mr. Kumar’s removal. The notices were rejected on April 6 by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan.

In their rulings, the presiding officers said that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.

A detailed 17-page order issued separately by both offices said the charges lacked proof and were either related to matters already decided or currently under judicial scrutiny. The order noted that while the issues raised may be part of political debate, they did not meet the “high constitutional bar” required to initiate removal proceedings under the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Allegations and response

In its earlier notices, the Opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".

The notices alleged “proved misbehaviour” on several grounds, including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders, obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and refusal to share data and materials.

They also accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement through Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and other regions, delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive.

However, the presiding officers rejected these claims. They said appointment-related issues or prior government service do not amount to misconduct, and that administrative decisions or differences in public statements do not show wilful abuse of authority.

They also said that matters such as data-sharing and electoral roll revisions fall within the constitutional mandate of the Election Commission and are subject to judicial review. Several of the issues cited were described as speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice.